Pith. sign in

REVIEW

An evaluation of deep learning models for predicting water depth evolution in urban floods

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.10062 v1 pith:SPJLVS2D submitted 2023-02-20 cs.LG physics.ao-ph

An evaluation of deep learning models for predicting water depth evolution in urban floods

classification cs.LG physics.ao-ph
keywords modelsdeepwaterdepthlearningareashighprediction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

In this technical report we compare different deep learning models for prediction of water depth rasters at high spatial resolution. Efficient, accurate, and fast methods for water depth prediction are nowadays important as urban floods are increasing due to higher rainfall intensity caused by climate change, expansion of cities and changes in land use. While hydrodynamic models models can provide reliable forecasts by simulating water depth at every location of a catchment, they also have a high computational burden which jeopardizes their application to real-time prediction in large urban areas at high spatial resolution. Here, we propose to address this issue by using data-driven techniques. Specifically, we evaluate deep learning models which are trained to reproduce the data simulated by the CADDIES cellular-automata flood model, providing flood forecasts that can occur at different future time horizons. The advantage of using such models is that they can learn the underlying physical phenomena a priori, preventing manual parameter setting and computational burden. We perform experiments on a dataset consisting of two catchments areas within Switzerland with 18 simpler, short rainfall patterns and 4 long, more complex ones. Our results show that the deep learning models present in general lower errors compared to the other methods, especially for water depths $>0.5m$. However, when testing on more complex rainfall events or unseen catchment areas, the deep models do not show benefits over the simpler ones.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.