A Systematic Literature Review on Flow Data-Based Techniques for Automated Leak Management in Water Distribution Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart cities integrate advanced technologies, data-driven decision-making, and interconnected infrastructure to enhance urban living and resource efficiency. Among these, Smart Water Management (SWM) is crucial for optimizing water distribution and reducing Non-Revenue Water (NRW) losses, a persistent challenge for utilities worldwide. Water leaks contribute significantly to NRW, necessitating real-time leak detection and management systems to minimize detection time and human effort. Achieving this requires seamless integration of SWM technologies, including advanced metering infrastructure, the Internet of Things (IoT), and Artificial Intelligence (AI). While previous studies have explored various leak detection techniques, many lack a focused analysis of real-time data integration and automated alerts in SWM systems. This Systematic Literature Review (SLR) addresses this gap by examining advancements in automatic data collection, leak detection models, and real-time alert mechanisms. The findings highlight the growing potential of data-driven approaches to enhance leak detection accuracy and efficiency, particularly those leveraging flow and pressure data. Despite advancements, model accuracy, scalability, and real-world applicability remain. This review provides critical insights for future research, guiding the development of automated, AI-driven leak management systems to improve water distribution, minimize losses, and enhance sustainability in smart cities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".