Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 45 references

Applying Machine Learning Tools for Urban Resilience Against Floods

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding machine learning to the Climate Disaster Resilience Index turns a static flood-resilience snapshot into a 2025 forecast for Tehran's District 6.

desk verdict A small case study that applies standard ML to an existing resilience index, but the 2025 forecast is a fitted extrapolation with no out-of-sample check, and the paper itself labels the same results as 2022 predictions. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06205 v1 pith:R6BMHIHS submitted 2024-12-09 cs.LG

Mahla Ardebili Pour , Mohammad B. Ghiasi , Ali Karkehabadi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords urbanfloodresilienceClimateDisasterIndexmachinelearningTehranDistrict6temporalpredictionLSTMriskmanagement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that Tehran's District 6 can be given a dynamic flood-resilience assessment by attaching machine learning to the Climate Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI), a questionnaire-based score of five resilience dimensions. The problem it addresses is real: CDRI is a static spatial snapshot, so it cannot show whether resilience is improving or eroding as urban conditions change. The authors assemble CDRI scores for 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022, fit six machine learning models, and use them to predict physical, social, economic, organizational, and natural/health resilience for 2025. If the approach holds, urban planners would have a data-driven way to see which resilience dimensions are slipping and to time interventions, rather than relying on a single point-in-time index. The paper presents this as an initial exploration and proof-of-concept integration, not as a field-tested forecasting system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Climate Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI), a structured questionnaire that scores five dimensions of urban resilience (physical, social, economic, organizational, natural/health) on a 1 to 5 scale. The paper's mechanism is to turn CDRI's static spatial snapshot into a time series: scores from 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022 are treated as training data for six models (linear regression, decision tree, random forest, gradient boosting, vector autoregression, and LSTM), and each model emits 2025 forecasts per dimension. The LSTM receives special attention because it is the one architecture built for sequential data, and its training-loss curve is shown as evidence that the model is learning. What carries the argument is the prediction table: the convergence of the six models on similar values is taken to indicate that the forecasts are meaningful.

What would settle it

Collect actual 2025 CDRI scores for District 6 and compare them with the paper's Table II predictions; if the models are far off, or if a simple baseline of carrying the 2022 scores forward beats them, the central claim fails. A cheaper check is to hold out 2022, train on 2013, 2016, and 2019, and see whether the models reproduce 2022 better than chance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a spatial resilience index can be converted into a temporal one without changing the CDRI questionnaire: treating the four historical assessments as a time series lets six machine learning models produce 2025 predictions for each of the five dimensions. The paper reads the prediction table as evidence that the integrated model tracks real trends, pointing to the 2019 decline in economic and health resilience as the model picking up pandemic and inflation pressures. It further claims that this Temporal CDRI is more adaptable and data-driven than the static original, giving policymakers a forecast they can respond to. In the authors' telling, the value is the combination itself: CDRI supplies structured, expert-weighted indicators, and machine learning supplies the temporal extrapolation.

Load-bearing premise

The whole forecast rests on the assumption that four questionnaire snapshots, each from 11 experts, are enough to train models that extrapolate to 2025, with no stationarity, sample-size, or out-of-sample validation to support that step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CDRI becomes a monitoring instrument: repeating the questionnaire every few years and refitting the models turns resilience measurement into a trend-tracking tool rather than a one-off snapshot.
  • The 2019 dip in economic and health scores, attributed to pandemic and inflation pressures, shows the framework could flag external shocks in specific resilience dimensions.
  • Planners get a dimension-wise 2025 forecast, such as physical resilience around 4.0 to 4.2 and economic resilience around 2.0 to 2.2, which can direct where to prioritise interventions like runoff capture and green infrastructure.
  • District 6 concentrates over 30% of Tehran's governmental buildings on 3% of the city's land, so a district-level resilience forecast draws attention to the part of the city where disruption would be most costly.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step the paper leaves implicit is proper out-of-sample testing: train on 2013, 2016, and 2019, predict 2022, and compare against the recorded 2022 scores; Table II already contains the ingredients for this check but the paper reports 2025 predictions instead.
  • Because the historical record has only four time points, the same workflow would be more convincing with a trivial baseline, such as carrying the 2022 scores forward, to show the machine learning models actually beat persistence.
  • The temporal CDRI template could transfer to other districts or cities that have run CDRI-style surveys, turning a single case study into a reusable forecasting method.
  • A testable policy extension would tie the outputs to decisions: if predicted economic resilience stays near 2.0, planners could target stormwater and green-space investments at the neighborhoods with the lowest predicted scores and measure whether subsequent survey cycles show improvement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a temporal extension of the Climate Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI) for flood resilience assessment in Tehran's District 6. After a literature review of eight resilience models, the authors select CDRI and collect expert questionnaire data on five resilience dimensions (physical, social, economic, organizational, and natural/health) from 11 experts at three-year intervals between 2013 and 2022. Six machine learning models (linear regression, decision tree, random forest, gradient boosting, vector autoregression, and LSTM) are applied to the resulting time series, and Table II reports predicted resilience scores per dimension. The abstract and conclusion state that these are 2025 predictions and that the integration yields a dynamic, data-driven resilience model offering actionable insights for policymakers and planners.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the paper would provide a useful proof-of-concept for injecting temporal dynamics into the otherwise static CDRI framework, and the six-model comparison would be informative for practitioners working on flood resilience in data-sparse settings. The paper deserves credit for a transparent description of its data design (11 experts, four time points, five weighted dimensions), for making all six model outputs explicit in Table II, and for choosing a practically important case study; these features make the evidentiary gaps easy to diagnose from the text itself. As it stands, however, the contribution is conditional on a validation exercise the paper does not perform, and the significance of the forecasting claim cannot be assessed from the material provided.

major comments (5)
  1. [§V.1 / Table II] The paper's central claim — that Table II contains 2025 resilience forecasts — is contradicted by its own text. Section V.1 is titled 'Prediction Results for 2022 based on Machine Learning' and states that 'each model generated a prediction for each resilience feature in 2022,' while the Table II caption reads '2025 RESILIENCE FEATURE PREDICTIONS.' If the results are for 2022, then the models were trained on data that include 2022 (the training window is 2013–2022 per Section IV-B), so the entries are fitted values, not forecasts. If the results are for 2025, the paper provides no validation whatsoever. Either way, the abstract's claim of 'predicting resilience dimensions for 2025' is unsupported by the reported table. This is a load-bearing inconsistency, not a cosmetic one: it determines whether the paper reports a forecast or a curve fit.
  2. [§V] No out-of-sample validation is reported. The results section contains no train/test split, no prediction-error statistic (no MAE, RMSE, or R²), and no confidence or prediction intervals for any of the six models. The assertion in §V.2 that the analysis 'demonstrates the potential of machine learning models to forecast urban resilience features accurately' therefore has no quantitative basis; Figure 3 shows only the LSTM training loss decreasing, which is expected when fitting and is not evidence of generalization. A minimal corrective experiment, feasible with the existing data, is a temporal holdout: train on 2013–2019 and evaluate on 2022, reporting errors before any 2025 extrapolation is presented.
  3. [§IV-B] The sample is too small for the models used, and no justification is offered. The dataset consists of four time points at three-year intervals from 11 experts (at most 44 aggregated observations per dimension). LSTM networks, VAR, and gradient boosting have dozens to hundreds of effective parameters, far exceeding the number of independent temporal observations; the four time points provide no basis for estimating the temporal dependence structure that these models are claimed to capture. The paper neither argues that the series are stationary nor provides a sample-size or power justification, and the extrapolation to 2025 lies entirely outside the observed range (2013–2022), so the forecast quality cannot even in principle be checked without a held-out year.
  4. [§IV-B / refs [16], [30]] The input data come from the authors' own prior questionnaire study (reference [30], which appears to be the same article as reference [16], listed twice). Because the 2025 values in Table II are outputs of models fitted to these same data, with no external benchmark or held-out year, the proposed 'prediction' reduces by construction to a fit of the authors' earlier index. This is not in itself disqualifying — reusing one's own data is common — but it requires a much stronger out-of-sample check than the paper provides; specifically, a comparison of model outputs against any independent resilience measurement for District 6, or at minimum the 2022 temporal holdout described above.
  5. [§V / §VI] The substantive interpretation is misdated. The paper attributes a 2019 decline in economic and health resilience to COVID-19 ('the effects of COVID-19' in §V; 'the 2019 pandemic' in §VI), but the pandemic began in 2020. The 2019 decline is instead contemporaneous with the March 2019 Iran floods cited in the introduction, which is a different causal story. The paper's temporal narrative for the CDRI dynamics therefore rests on a factual error.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§II] Section II contains a broken sentence ('ML In this research, ML techniques are applied to enhance the temporal dynamics of the Climate Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI)'), and 'V AR' appears with a stray space in Section II and in Table II's row labels.
  2. [§V] Section V contains typos: 'thel CDRI model' and 'helath resilience' in the second paragraph.
  3. [References] References [16] and [30] both cite 'Urban flood resilience assessment & stormwater management (case study: District 6 of Tehran)' in IJDRR volume 102 (2024), with different author lists; the duplicate should be collapsed into a single reference with a verified author list.
  4. [§IV-B] Section IV-B is ambiguous about the data source: it says data came from 'structured questionnaires with 11 experts,' but later says the data 'was gathered from official government agencies involved in urban infrastructure management'; the paper should clarify which source applies to which dimension.
  5. [§IV-B] The expert-assigned importance weights used to combine the 1–5 parameter ratings are never specified; the paper should state how the weights were elicited, normalized, and applied, since the dimension scores in Table II depend on them.
  6. [§V] Only the 2013 spider diagram is shown (Figure 2); showing the 2016, 2019, and 2022 diagrams would substantiate the claimed temporal trends, including the asserted 2019 decline.
  7. [§IV-A / §V.1] No hyperparameter settings are reported for the six models (LSTM architecture and number of epochs beyond the loss curve in Figure 3, VAR lag order, tree depth, number of trees), so the numbers in Table II are not reproducible.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 2025 resilience predictions are either in-sample fitted outputs or unvalidated extrapolations from the same CDRI questionnaire data, and the paper's own 2022/2025 labeling inconsistency makes the forecasting claim reduce to the fitted model by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-B, Section V.1, Table II]
    "Section IV-B: 'The data used in this study ... captured at three-year intervals from 2013 to 2022.' Section V.1: 'Each model generated a prediction for each resilience feature in 2022. Table II summarizes these predictions.' Table II caption: 'PRESENTS 2025 RESILIENCE FEATURE PREDICTIONS GENERATED BY EACH MACHINE LEARNING MODEL.'"

    The paper trains six machine learning models on the 2013–2022 CDRI data and presents the resulting table as '2025 RESILIENCE FEATURE PREDICTIONS,' yet the accompanying section states the predictions are for 2022. If the target is 2022, then 2022 lies inside the training interval, so the table values are in-sample fitted outputs, not forecasts. If the target is 2025, the paper reports no train/test split, no out-of-sample metric, and no confidence interval, so the values are unvalidated extrapolations. Either way, the 'prediction' is statistically forced by the same CDRI dataset that defines the target, and the central forecasting claim does not rest on any independent or held-out evidence.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section IV (Methodology), Section IV-A]
    "Section IV: 'The CDRI method enables data collection through structured questionnaires, providing targeted resilience indicators tailored to the study area [30].' Section IV-A: 'This work builds upon prior research on the CDRI method, enhancing it by making the CDRI dynamic over time.'"

    The only empirical input to the machine learning pipeline—the 2013–2022 CDRI scores for District 6—and the choice of the CDRI framework itself are sourced from the authors' own prior paper, reference [30] (Pour, Zare & Maknoon 2024). The paper presents its 'dynamic Temporal CDRI model' as a new contribution, but that contribution is an ML transformation of these self-produced CDRI data. Without independent data or an external benchmark, the conclusion that the model 'offers valuable insights' rests on a self-citation chain: the target values and the training values both come from the same prior study by the same authors, so the analysis cannot independently validate the resilience trend it reports.

full rationale

This paper is not circular in the sense of deriving an equation from itself, but its central empirical claim—that machine learning predicts 2025 resilience dimensions for Tehran's District 6—is not supported by out-of-sample evidence. The paper explicitly labels the same results as both '2025 RESILIENCE FEATURE PREDICTIONS' (Table II) and 'prediction for each resilience feature in 2022' (Section V.1). Since the training data run through 2022, a 2022 target makes the outputs in-sample fits; a 2025 target is never validated with held-out data. In addition, the CDRI data and framework come from the authors' prior reference [30], so the entire empirical basis is self-referential. These issues do not necessarily invalidate the use of ML for time-series extrapolation, but they mean the paper's advertised forecasting content reduces to fitted model outputs and unverified extrapolation. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the 'predictions' are effectively fitted values or unvalidated extrapolations from the same CDRI dataset, with no external benchmark to break the loop.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claims rest on the validity of the CDRI index, the representativeness of expert scores, and the sufficiency of four time points for ML extrapolation.

free parameters (2)
  • Expert-assigned importance weights for resilience parameters = not reported
    The paper states parameters were 'weighted by importance' but does not report the weights or how they were derived; predictions depend on these weights.
  • Machine learning model parameters (e.g., LSTM weights, random forest hyperparameters) = not reported
    The 2025 predictions are direct outputs of fitted ML models; no hyperparameters, regularization, architecture details, or fitted coefficients are provided.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption CDRI, as published by Joerin and Shaw, is a valid measure of urban flood resilience for District 6.
    The paper selects CDRI via literature review but offers no independent validation that its dimensions map to actual flood resilience in Tehran.
  • domain assumption Structured questionnaires from 11 experts provide accurate, unbiased resilience scores.
    The data are subjective; no inter-rater reliability, calibration, or expert selection criteria are reported (Section IV-B).
  • ad hoc to paper Four time points are sufficient to estimate temporal trends with ML models.
    Only 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022 are used; no justification is given for extrapolating to 2025, and no out-of-sample validation is performed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Applying Machine Learning Tools for Urban Resilience Against Floods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R6BMHIHS

@misc{pith2026241206205,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Applying Machine Learning Tools for Urban Resilience Against Floods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R6BMHIHS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06205}
}
read the original abstract

Floods are among the most prevalent and destructive natural disasters, often leading to severe social and economic impacts in urban areas due to the high concentration of assets and population density. In Iran, particularly in Tehran, recurring flood events underscore the urgent need for robust urban resilience strategies. This paper explores flood resilience models to identify the most effective approach for District 6 in Tehran. Through an extensive literature review, various resilience models were analyzed, with the Climate Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI) emerging as the most suitable model for this district due to its comprehensive resilience dimensions: Physical, Social, Economic, Organizational, and Natural Health resilience. Although the CDRI model provides a structured approach to resilience measurement, it remains a static model focused on spatial characteristics and lacks temporal adaptability. An extensive literature review enhances the CDRI model by integrating data from 2013 to 2022 in three-year intervals and applying machine learning techniques to predict resilience dimensions for 2025. This integration enables a dynamic resilience model that can accommodate temporal changes, providing a more adaptable and data driven foundation for urban flood resilience planning. By employing artificial intelligence to reflect evolving urban conditions, this model offers valuable insights for policymakers and urban planners to enhance flood resilience in Tehrans critical District 6.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06205 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Iran, b) Tehran, c) Region 6 of Tehran [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrates scores across multiple dimensions over the assessment 2013 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Depicts the reduction in loss during the LSTM model’s training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualizes the predicted resilience scores for each model, highlighting differences in forecasts for each resilience feature dimension. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    & Others Urban flood resilience assessment & stormwater management (case study: District 6 of Tehran)

    Zare, N., Maknoon, R. & Others Urban flood resilience assessment & stormwater management (case study: District 6 of Tehran). International Journal Of Disaster Risk Reduction . 102 pp. 104280 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [30]

    & Maknoon, R

    Pour, M., Zare, N. & Maknoon, R. Urban flood resilience assessment & stormwater management (case study: District 6 of Tehran). International Journal Of Disaster Risk Reduction . 102 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [7]

    ”Urban infrastructure and resilience planning: Insights from Tehran’s District 6.” *Journal of Resilient Cities*, vol

    Farzanegan, Mohammad Reza, and Hajebi, Sima. ”Urban infrastructure and resilience planning: Insights from Tehran’s District 6.” *Journal of Resilient Cities*, vol. 5, no. 2, 2020, pp. 234-250. Elsevier

    work page 2020

  4. [8]

    ”Resilience in urban planning: Case studies from Tehran.” *Urban Sustainability*, vol

    Mirzaei, Mahin, and Kermani, Bahram. ”Resilience in urban planning: Case studies from Tehran.” *Urban Sustainability*, vol. 8, 2018, pp. 195-208. Springer

    work page 2018

  5. [1]

    & Ab- basi, M

    Ebrahimian Ghajari, Y ., Alesheikh, A., Modiri, M., Hosnavi, R. & Ab- basi, M. Spatial modelling of urban physical vulnerability to explosion hazards using GIS and fuzzy MCDA. Sustainability. 9, 1274 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [2]

    & Talebbeydokhti, N

    Zare, N. & Talebbeydokhti, N. Policies and governance impact maps of floods on metropolitan Shiraz (the first step toward resilience modeling of the city). International Journal Of Disaster Risk Reduction . 28 pp. 298-317 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [3]

    Norouzi, H

    H. Norouzi, H. Mansourianfar, and M. Sharifi, ”Framework for Urban Resilience in Flood-prone Areas: Lessons from the 2019 Flood in Iran,” Sustainable Cities and Society , vol. 66, p. 102662, 2021

    work page 2019

  8. [4]

    Liang, P

    X. Liang, P. Wen, and Z. Wang, ”Resilient City Planning for Disaster Risk Reduction in Urban Areas: A Case Study of Flood Risk Man- agement,” Environmental Research Letters , vol. 15, no. 8, p. 085007, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 45 references
  1. [5]

    J. Ma, Y . Zeng, and L. Yang, ”Resilience to Floods in Urbanized River Basins: Key Determinants and Enhancing Factors,” Natural Hazards , vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 287-308, 2021

    2021

  2. [6]

    ”Climate change to blame for the devastating drought in Syria, Iraq and Iran.” Imperial College London News , 2023

    Rahimi, Mohammad, Clarke, Ben, and Otto, Friederike. ”Climate change to blame for the devastating drought in Syria, Iraq and Iran.” Imperial College London News , 2023. Available at: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/ news/249415/climate-change-blame-devastating-drought-syria/

    2023

  3. [9]

    Applied hydrology

    Chow, V . Applied hydrology. (McGraw-Hill,1988)

    1988

  4. [10]

    ”Flood Risk Management and Resilience Planning.” *Environmental Science and Policy*, vol

    Jones, David and Taylor, Alice. ”Flood Risk Management and Resilience Planning.” *Environmental Science and Policy*, vol. 115, 2020, pp. 55-

    2020

  5. [11]

    ”Classification and Impacts of Flooding Events: A Global Perspective.” *Journal of Hydrology and Water Resources*, vol

    Smith, John R. ”Classification and Impacts of Flooding Events: A Global Perspective.” *Journal of Hydrology and Water Resources*, vol. 15, no. 3, 2021, pp. 121-134. Elsevier

    2021

  6. [12]

    ”Flood Types and Urban Plan- ning: Analyzing Hydrographic Data.” *Urban Environmental Studies*, vol

    Taylor, Alice M., and Johnson, Peter L. ”Flood Types and Urban Plan- ning: Analyzing Hydrographic Data.” *Urban Environmental Studies*, vol. 22, no. 4, 2022, pp. 215-228. Springer

    2022

  7. [13]

    & Lamond, J

    Jha, A., Bloch, R. & Lamond, J. Cities and flooding: a guide to integrated urban flood risk management for the 21st century. (World Bank Publications,2012)

    2012

  8. [14]

    ”The Impact of Historical Flooding Events on Urban Development and Population Displacement.” *Environmental Hazards Review*, vol

    Lee, Andrew J. ”The Impact of Historical Flooding Events on Urban Development and Population Displacement.” *Environmental Hazards Review*, vol. 27, no. 2, 2020, pp. 153-166. Taylor & Francis

    2020

  9. [15]

    & Simonovic, S

    Owrangi, A., Lannigan, R. & Simonovic, S. Mapping climate change- caused health risk for integrated city resilience modeling. Natural Hazards. 77 pp. 67-88 (2015)

    2015

  10. [17]

    & Others Developing a resilience index towards natural disasters in Indonesia

    Kusumastuti, R., Husodo, Z., Suardi, L., Danarsari, D. & Others Developing a resilience index towards natural disasters in Indonesia. International Journal Of Disaster Risk Reduction . 10 pp. 327-340 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    Adger, W. Neil. ”Social Resilience in the Face of Disasters and Climate Change.” *Environmental Science & Policy*, vol. 35, no. 2, 2021, pp. 111-123. Elsevier

    2021

  12. [19]

    & Bryant, M

    Allan, P. & Bryant, M. Resilience as a framework for urbanism and recovery. Journal Of Landscape Architecture . 6, 34-45 (2011)

    2011

  13. [20]

    & Moench, M

    Tyler, S. & Moench, M. A framework for urban climate resilience. Climate And Development . 4, 311-326 (2012)

    2012

  14. [21]

    & Emrich, C

    Cutter, S., Burton, C. & Emrich, C. Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal Of Homeland Security And Emergency Management. 7 (2010)

    2010

  15. [22]

    & Arendt, L

    Cimellaro, G., Renschler, C., Reinhorn, A. & Arendt, L. PEOPLES: a framework for evaluating resilience. Journal Of Structural Engineering . 142, 04016063 (2016)

    2016

  16. [23]

    & Peck, A

    Simonovic, S. & Peck, A. Dynamic resilience to climate change caused natural disasters in coastal megacities quantification framework. British Journal Of Environment And Climate Change . 3, 378-401 (2013)

    2013

  17. [24]

    & Aharonson-Daniel, L

    Cohen, O., Leykin, D., Lahad, M., Goldberg, A. & Aharonson-Daniel, L. The conjoint community resiliency assessment measure as a baseline for profiling and predicting community resilience for emergencies. Technological F orecasting And Social Change . 80, 1732-1741 (2013)

    2013

  18. [25]

    & Dezzani, R

    Frazier, T., Thompson, C. & Dezzani, R. A framework for the develop- ment of the SERV model: A Spatially Explicit Resilience-Vulnerability model. Applied Geography . 51 pp. 158-172 (2014)

    2014

  19. [26]

    Foundations of community disaster resilience: Well-being, identity, services, and capitals

    Miles, S. Foundations of community disaster resilience: Well-being, identity, services, and capitals. Environmental Hazards And Resilience . pp. 32-50 (2021)

    2021

  20. [27]

    & Malik, A

    Kontokosta, C. & Malik, A. The Resilience to Emergencies and Disasters Index: Applying big data to benchmark and validate neighborhood resilience capacity. Sustainable Cities And Society . 36 pp. 272-285 (2018)

    2018

  21. [28]

    & Chopra, S

    Sajjad, M., Chan, J. & Chopra, S. Rethinking disaster resilience in high-density cities: Towards an urban resilience knowledge system. Sustainable Cities And Society . 69 pp. 102850 (2021)

    2021

  22. [29]

    ”Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities.” *Natural Hazards Review*, vol

    Godschalk, David R. ”Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities.” *Natural Hazards Review*, vol. 4, no. 3, 2003, pp. 136-143. American Society of Civil Engineers

    2003

  23. [31]

    & Padoy, N

    Hassanpour, J., Srivastav, V ., Mutter, D. & Padoy, N. Overcoming Di- mensional Collapse in Self-supervised Contrastive Learning for Medical Image Segmentation. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:2402.14611 . (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    ”Community Resilience and Flood Prevention: Integrating Social and Environmental Indicators.” *International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction*, vol

    Miller, James, et al. ”Community Resilience and Flood Prevention: Integrating Social and Environmental Indicators.” *International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction*, vol. 33, 2022, pp. 201-212. Elsevier

    2022

  25. [33]

    & Shaw, R

    Joerin, J. & Shaw, R. Chapter 3 mapping climate and disaster resilience in cities. Climate And Disaster Resilience In Cities . pp. 47-61 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    & Sasan, A

    Karkehabadi, A., Homayoun, H. & Sasan, A. SMOOT: Saliency guided mask optimized online training. 2024 IEEE 17th Dallas Circuits And Systems Conference (DCAS) . pp. 1-6 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    & Sasan, A

    Karkehabadi, A., Latibari, B., Homayoun, H. & Sasan, A. HLGM: A Novel Methodology For Improving Model Accuracy Using Saliency- Guided High and Low Gradient Masking. The 14th International Con- ference On Information Science And Technology

  28. [36]

    & Schmidhuber, J

    Hochreiter, S. & Schmidhuber, J. Long short-term memory. Neural Computation. 9, 1735-1780 (1997)

    1997

  29. [37]

    & Runger, G

    Montgomery, D. & Runger, G. Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers. (John Wiley & Sons,2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    & Stone, C

    Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R. & Stone, C. Classification and Regression Trees. (Routledge,1984)

    1984

  31. [39]

    The Random Subspace Method for Constructing Decision Forests

    Ho, T. The Random Subspace Method for Constructing Decision Forests. IEEE Transactions On Pattern Analysis And Machine Intelligence . 20, 832-844 (1995)

    1995

  32. [40]

    Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine

    Friedman, J. Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine. The Annals Of Statistics . 29, 1189-1232 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    New Introduction to Multiple Time Series Analysis

    L ¨utkepohl, H. New Introduction to Multiple Time Series Analysis. (Springer Science & Business Media,2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    & Kashi, A

    Ghiasi, M., Moezzi, M. & Kashi, A. A Simple Low Phase Noise Class-F LC Oscillator. Circuits, Systems, And Signal Processing . 41, 3041-3049 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    & Ghiasi, M

    Sheikhahmadi, S., Moezzi, M., Ghafoorifard, H. & Ghiasi, M. A capac- itive transformer-based class-C oscillator. AEU-International Journal Of Electronics And Communications . 170 pp. 154779 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Novel Saliency Analysis for the Forward Forward Algo- rithm

    Bakhshi, M. Novel Saliency Analysis for the Forward Forward Algo- rithm. ArXiv Preprint arXiv:2409.15365 . (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    & Sasan, A

    Karkehabadi, A., Homayoun, H. & Sasan, A. FFCL: Forward-Forward Net with Cortical Loops, Training and Inference on Edge Without Backpropogation. Proceedings Of The Great Lakes Symposium On VLSI

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.