Near Real-Time Flood Monitoring Using Multi-Sensor Optical Imagery and Machine Learning by GEE: An Automatic Feature-Based Multi-Class Classification Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flooding is one of the most severe natural hazards, causing widespread environmental, economic, and social disruption. If not managed properly, it can lead to human losses, property damage, and the destruction of livelihoods. The ability to rapidly assess such damages is crucial for emergency management. Near Real-Time (NRT) spatial information on flood-affected areas, obtained via remote sensing, is essential for disaster response, relief, urban and industrial reconstruction, insurance services, and damage assessment. Numerous flood mapping methods have been proposed, each with distinct strengths and limitations. Among the most widely used are machine learning algorithms and spectral indices, though these methods often face challenges, particularly in threshold selection for spectral indices and the sampling process for supervised classification. This study aims to develop an NRT flood mapping approach using supervised classification based on spectral features. The method automatically generates training samples through masks derived from spectral indices. More specifically, this study uses FWEI, NDVI, NDBI, and BSI indices to extract training samples for water/flood, vegetation, built-up areas, and soil, respectively. The Otsu thresholding technique is applied to create the spectral masks. Land cover classification is then performed using the Random Forest algorithm with the automatically generated training samples. The final flood map is obtained by subtracting the pre-flood water class from the post-flood image. The proposed method is implemented using optical satellite images from Sentinel-2, Landsat-8, and Landsat-9. The proposed method’s accuracy is rigorously evaluated and compared with those obtained from spectral indices and machine learning techniques. The suggested approach achieves the highest overall accuracy (OA) of 90.57% and a Kappa Coefficient (KC) of 0.89, surpassing SVM (OA: 90.04%, KC: 0.88), Decision Trees (OA: 88.64%, KC: 0.87), and spectral indices like AWEI (OA: 84.12%, KC: 0.82), FWEI (OA: 88.23%, KC: 0.86), NDWI (OA: 85.78%, KC: 0.84), and MNDWI (OA: 87.67%, KC: 0.85). These results underscore the superior accuracy and effectiveness of the proposed approach for NRT flood detection and monitoring using multi-sensor optical imagery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".