Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Physics Informed Data Driven model for Flood Prediction: Application of Deep Learning in prediction of urban flood development

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A convolutional network trained on shallow-water simulations can predict an urban flood's evolution 30 minutes ahead at roughly 50,000 times the speed of the PDE solver, with errors that stay small over multi-hour rollouts.

desk verdict Useful, clearly written surrogate for urban flood SWE, but the reported accuracy may reflect memory of training scenarios rather than true generalization because the validation split is not held out by simulation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10312 v1 pith:JANNC3ZA submitted 2019-08-23 eess.SP cs.LG

Kun Qian , Abduallah Mohamed , Christian Claudel This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.LG
keywords DeepLearningFloodPredictionShallowWaterEquationsConvolutionalNeuralNetworksConditionalGANsUrbanFloodingReal-timePDESurrogateModeling
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 a convolutional neural network can stand in for a slow physics-based flood simulator, predicting how an urban flood spreads in a 30-minute leap with nearly the same accuracy as solving the shallow-water equations. The authors train the network on 10,000 snapshot pairs drawn from 1,080 simulations of a 12-hour flood in Austin, Texas, where each input encodes water depth, two momentum components, and the coming rain and river inflow. They report that the best CNN matches the simulated flood evolution over several hours and runs about 50,000 times faster than the PDE solver on the same CPU, which would make real-time city-wide flood warning and ensemble estimation feasible. They also find that plain conditional GANs tend to drift on long horizons, and that a Kalman-filter-style correction step using sparse local predictions reduces that drift.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Markovian leap map: because the shallow-water equations are first-order in time, the full state at time $t$ (water depth $h$, $x$-momentum $uh$, $y$-momentum $vh$) plus the next 30 minutes of rainfall and inflow determines the state at $t+30$; the paper replaces the PDE solver's many small time steps with a single convolutional network $\Phi$ that approximates this map. The network uses an encoder-decoder built from residual blocks, with $5\times100\times100$ input channels and $3\times100\times100$ output channels, and is trained with an $L^1$ loss; the best performer adds noise to inputs during training so that small errors made in a rollout do not compound. A secondary mechanism is the assimilation step: a Kalman-filter-style measurement update $\hat{X}=X+PH^T(HPH^T+R)^{-1}(z-HX)$ merges a global prediction with sparse local predictions to correct drift in generative models.

What would settle it

Hold out a disjoint set of simulations: train on snapshots from, say, 900 of the 1,080 simulations and test on the remaining 180, then compare the CNN rollout against the PDE solver on those unseen rainfall and inflow scenarios. If the error on unseen simulations is much larger than the reported validation MSE, the model has memorized training events rather than learned the shallow-water dynamics, and the real-time prediction claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the dynamics of the two-dimensional shallow-water equations, in a realistic urban watershed with rainfall and river inflow forcing, can be learned by a residual-block CNN from simulation data well enough that the network reproduces the solver's future states with low mean-squared error and stable PSNR over several hours of rolled-out prediction. A one-step prediction 30 minutes ahead takes one forward pass; the same CPU that needs hours to run the PDE solver executes it about 50,000 times faster. The authors further show that injecting noise during training stabilizes the multi-step temporal rollout, and that a measurement-update step in the style of the Kalman filter can pull a drifting generative model back toward the true state when sparse local observations are available.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the validation pairs measure generalization to new floods; if the 2,000 validation snapshots are instead drawn from the same 1,080 simulations as the training snapshots, the reported error may mostly reflect memory of those specific events.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A trained CNN can replace the PDE solver in the forward-prediction step of a real-time flood monitoring loop, cutting the cost of a 30-minute city-wide forecast from minutes or hours to milliseconds on the same hardware.
  • Because the surrogate is fast and its runtime is stable, ensemble data-assimilation methods such as the Ensemble Kalman Filter, which need many forward simulations, become computationally affordable for urban flood estimation.
  • Rolled-out CNN predictions stay close to the solver for several hours when the network is trained with input noise, so the model can serve not only one-step nowcasting but multi-step trajectory prediction.
  • For cGAN-based models, the paper's Kalman-filter-style correction using sparse local predictions provides a way to keep long-horizon forecasts from diverging.
  • The model outputs complete 100-by-100 fields of depth and momentum, so warnings can be localized to creeks, channels and streets rather than reduced to river-gauge readings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The pipeline is not tied to floods: the same recipe, letting a PDE solver generate snapshot pairs and training a residual CNN to learn the one-leap map, should transfer to other hyperbolic transport models such as storm surge, tsunami runup, or overland debris flow, provided enough simulations can be run.
  • The strongest open test is the one the paper does not report: whether the network generalizes to rainfall and inflow patterns outside the 1,080 simulated configurations; this is what would decide whether a deployed system could be trusted before a novel storm.
  • The soil, sewer, and building simplifications mean the surrogate inherits the solver's idealizations; pairing the network with the measurement-update step and real sensor data is a natural path toward closing that gap.
  • The 50,000x speedup invites a swap of effort: spend more compute offline to train on finer meshes or more scenarios, since the online cost is a single forward pass.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a data-driven surrogate for 2D shallow-water-equation flood simulation in an urban area (Austin, TX). CNN and conditional GAN models are trained on 10,000 input-output pairs extracted from 1,080 ANUGA simulations, with 2,000 pairs held out as validation; each pair maps a 5-channel 100x100 input (water depth, x- and y-momentum, expected inflow, expected precipitation) at time t to a 3-channel output at t+30 minutes. The authors report MSE and PSNR metrics, a temporal-evolution study over 30 time series, an assimilation step inspired by the Kalman filter, and a roughly 50,000x speedup compared with the PDE solver. The central claim is that the model provides precise real-time predictions of flood development that can replace the solver.

Significance. If the generalization claims were established, the work would be a valuable step toward real-time city-scale flood forecasting: it attacks a real operational bottleneck, compares several deep architectures, and makes code and data available. The strongest concrete contributions are the detailed architecture description, the comparison of CNN, cGAN, and an assimilation-augmented model, and the reproducible simulation-data pipeline. However, the current validation design does not demonstrate that the model predicts unseen rain/inflow scenarios, so the headline claims of 'precise' and 'real-time' predictions remain unsubstantiated for novel events.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Data Preparation] The validation set is not split by simulation. The text says that 'a stored result is randomly taken as an input' and 10,000/2,000 pairs are extracted, but it never states that validation pairs come from simulations absent from the training set. Because a simulation's internal states are highly correlated over time and share the same forcing pattern, random pairing can let the network memorize scenario-specific features rather than learn SWE dynamics. This directly affects the central claim of prediction for new flood events. The authors must split the 1,080 simulations into disjoint training/validation subsets (and preferably test on unseen forcing and boundary-condition combinations) and report the error on those held-out simulations.
  2. [Section 4.2, Temporal evolution] The temporal-evolution evaluation over '30 different pieces of time series data' does not state whether these series originate from simulations excluded from training. If they do not, the plotted MSE/PSNR curves and the statement that predictions 'align well' with the SWE results do not establish stability or accuracy for previously unseen scenarios. The same holdout-by-simulation discipline should be applied here.
  3. [Table 3 and Section 4.1] The 50,000x speedup claim is not fully documented. The caption states the PDE solver speed is averaged over 'a large number of different cases,' but the text does not report how the PDE time was measured, whether the comparison covers the same 30-minute prediction horizon, or whether the deep model time includes input preprocessing and output postprocessing. Without these details the speedup factor, which is a core part of the real-time claim, is not reproducible. Model 5's 10x figure suggests the assimilation step alone changes the comparison considerably; the measurement protocol should be described precisely.
  4. [Abstract and Section 1] The term 'physics informed' is used throughout, but the models do not incorporate the PDE residuals in the loss or architecture; they are trained purely on simulator output. This is not an error in itself, but the terminology overstates the connection to the governing equations. More importantly, no comparison to real-world flood observations is provided, so the 'precise' claim rests entirely on agreement with the training simulator. The authors should qualify the claims or add a clearly labeled discussion of this surrogate-validation limitation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (2.1)] Equation (2.1) is malformed: ∂U/∂t + h F = S does not correctly represent a conservation law; the typesetting should be fixed.
  2. [Appendix, GAN training] The authors use 'sued RMSprop' in the GAN training details; this should be 'used RMSprop'.
  3. [Conclusion and Abstract] The Conclusion lists important omitted processes (soil saturation, sewers, building impacts), but these limitations are absent from the Abstract and Introduction, where the model is described as 'precise'; the authors should align the claims with the enumerated simplifications.
  4. [Appendix, additional illustrations] The appendix repeats the same four-panel comparison figures (Figures 16–26) without additional analysis; consider reducing redundancy or adding quantitative per-case metrics.
  5. [Section 2.2] The notation refers to '3 channels each pixel,' but the input has 5 channels; clarify.
  6. [Section 4.1] The MSE and PSNR values in Tables 1 and 2 are reported without confidence intervals or repeated-run variation; given the large number of training epochs, a single run may not be representative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the network is a surrogate trained on output of an independent PDE solver and evaluated on held-out simulated states.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The deep learning models are trained on input/output pairs generated by ANUGA, an open-source finite-volume SWE solver (Section 3), so the training signal is external to the neural network. The inputs (water depth, momentum, expected inflow and precipitation) and outputs (simulated states 30 minutes later) are both defined directly from the PDE simulation, and no solver parameter or physical constant is fitted from the network's predictions. The reported MSE, PSNR, temporal-evolution curves, and speedup comparisons evaluate whether the learned map reproduces the solver's output on validation and test cases; they do not assert that the solver's physics is derived from the network. The claim that the data-driven model 'recovers the dynamics encoded by the 2D SWE' is a shorthand for learning a fast approximation of the solver, not a derivation of SWE from the model. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is used. The reviewer's concern about random train/validation pair splitting without simulation-level holdout is a real external-validity limitation for generalization to unseen flood scenarios, but it is a data-splitting weakness, not circularity: even with overlapping scenario memory, the target values remain independent solver outputs rather than functions of the model's own predictions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a surrogate that transfers authority to the ANUGA PDE solver and to the simulation suite; the only quantities introduced by the paper are architectural choices and an empirical covariance matrix for assimilation.

free parameters (4)
  • Prediction horizon = 30 minutes
    The neural network is trained to predict states 30 minutes ahead, which defines the speedup factor and is a design choice, not derived from physics.
  • L1 loss weight for GAN models = not specified precisely
    For Models 3, 4, and 5, the relative weight of L1 norm to discriminator loss is chosen by hand and significantly affects performance (Tables 1 and 2).
  • Empirical covariance matrices P and R in assimilation = not specified
    Used in Eq. 2.9 and Section 4.3, extracted from simulation data but the estimation procedure is not detailed, making them effectively fitted quantities.
  • K-Means classes for river/channel/land = 3 classes
    Performance evaluation is stratified by K-Means clustering over simulation data; the number of clusters is chosen and affects reported per-class MSE.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 2D Shallow Water Equations accurately model urban flood dynamics
    The paper states flood dynamics are usually governed by SWE (Section 1) and uses it as ground truth; if SWE neglects sewers, soil saturation, or building effects, the model inherits those biases.
  • domain assumption The Markov property holds for the discretized system
    Section 2.1 states since SWE is first order and homogeneous, only present states are needed; the neural network uses only current states and future inputs.
  • domain assumption ANUGA solves the SWE accurately enough to serve as ground truth
    The training targets are ANUGA outputs (Section 3); any numerical errors or mesh-resolution artifacts become the target distribution.
  • domain assumption The 1,080 simulated scenarios cover the diversity of real urban floods
    The model is trained and tested only on these simulations, so generalization to unseen rain patterns, intensities, or boundary conditions is assumed.
  • domain assumption Rain rate and river inflow for the next 30 minutes are known
    The input channels include expected inflow and precipitation over the horizon (Section 3), implying a forecast is available.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics Informed Data Driven model for Flood Prediction: Application of Deep Learning in prediction of urban flood development." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JANNC3ZA

@misc{pith2026190810312,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics Informed Data Driven model for Flood Prediction: Application of Deep Learning in prediction of urban flood development},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JANNC3ZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10312}
}
read the original abstract

Flash floods in urban areas occur with increasing frequency. Detecting these floods would greatlyhelp alleviate human and economic losses. However, current flood prediction methods are eithertoo slow or too simplified to capture the flood development in details. Using Deep Neural Networks,this work aims at boosting the computational speed of a physics-based 2-D urban flood predictionmethod, governed by the Shallow Water Equation (SWE). Convolutional Neural Networks(CNN)and conditional Generative Adversarial Neural Networks(cGANs) are applied to extract the dy-namics of flood from the data simulated by a Partial Differential Equation(PDE) solver. Theperformance of the data-driven model is evaluated in terms of Mean Squared Error(MSE) andPeak Signal to Noise Ratio(PSNR). The deep learning-based, data-driven flood prediction modelis shown to be able to provide precise real-time predictions of flood development

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10312 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the estimation process for a real-time flood monitoring system. The focus of the present article [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Map of the studied area. The left subfigure represents the subset of the state of Texas that we study in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the objective of this work. With PDE solver, thousands of computation steps are needed to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (21 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The GAN workflow used for flood prediction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The demonstration of how we depend on Kalman Filter to improve the prediction performance of cGANs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: This figure illustrates an example flood simulation. Left: illustration of the topology (the Colorado river [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Computational process used for forward simulation of floods using the SWE. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The Classification of the area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The comparison between targets and different deep learning based prediction methods. We compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The comparison of performance of Model 1,2 and 3. In the first plot, the development of MSE error along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The comparison of performance of Model 4 and 5. In the first plot, the development of MSE error along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The comparison of performance of Model 1 and Model 1 with Measurement update from true states. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The general Architecture of Residual Block based Network. For the details in each layer, please refer to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The comparison between targets and different deep learning based prediction methods. We compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The comparison between targets and different deep learning based prediction methods. We compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The comparison between targets and different deep learning based prediction methods. We compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The comparison between targets and different deep learning based prediction methods. We compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The comparison between targets and different deep learning based prediction methods. We compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The comparison between targets and different deep learning based prediction methods. We compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The comparison between targets and different deep learning based prediction methods. We compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The comparison between targets and different deep learning based prediction methods. We compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: The comparison between targets and different deep learning based prediction methods. We compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: The comparison between targets and different deep learning based prediction methods. We compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: The comparison between targets and different deep learning based prediction methods. We compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_26.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A high-resolution godunov-type scheme in finite volumes for the 2d shallow-water equations

    Alcrudo, F., Garcia-Navarro, P., 1993. A high-resolution godunov-type scheme in finite volumes for the 2d shallow-water equations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 16 (6), 489--505

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    R., Natalizio, E., Calafate, C

    Alvear, O., Zema, N. R., Natalizio, E., Calafate, C. T., 2017. Using uav-based systems to monitor air pollution in areas with poor accessibility. Journal of Advanced Transportation 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Solution of the 2d shallow water equations using the finite volume method on unstructured triangular meshes

    Anastasiou, K., Chan, C., 1997. Solution of the 2d shallow water equations using the finite volume method on unstructured triangular meshes. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 24 (11), 1225--1245

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    t., 2004

    Audusse, E., Bouchut, F., Bristeau, M.-O., Klein, R., Perthame, B. t., 2004. A fast and stable well-balanced scheme with hydrostatic reconstruction for shallow water flows. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 25 (6), 2050--2065

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Z., Koltun, V., 2018

    Bai, S., Kolter, J. Z., Koltun, V., 2018. An empirical evaluation of generic convolutional and recurrent networks for sequence modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01271

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    A., Ravela, S., Rus, D., 2008

    Basha, E. A., Ravela, S., Rus, D., 2008. Model-based monitoring for early warning flood detection. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on Embedded network sensor systems. ACM, pp. 295--308

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    A hybrid method for flood simulation in small catchments combining hydrodynamic and hydrological techniques

    Bellos, V., Tsakiris, G., 2016. A hybrid method for flood simulation in small catchments combining hydrodynamic and hydrological techniques. Journal of hydrology 540, 331--339

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Recursive bayesian estimation: Navigation and tracking applications

    Bergman, N., 1999. Recursive bayesian estimation: Navigation and tracking applications. Ph.D. thesis, Link \"o ping University

    work page 1999

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Flood disasters: lessons from the past—worries for the future

    Berz, G., 2000. Flood disasters: lessons from the past—worries for the future. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water and Maritime Engineering. Vol. 142. Thomas Telford Ltd, pp. 3--8

    2000

  2. [10]

    A well-balanced reconstruction of wet/dry fronts for the shallow water equations

    Bollermann, A., Chen, G., Kurganov, A., Noelle, S., 2013. A well-balanced reconstruction of wet/dry fronts for the shallow water equations. Journal of Scientific Computing 56 (2), 267--290

    2013

  3. [11]

    The validity of flow approximations when simulating catchment-integrated flash floods

    Bout, B., Jetten, V., 2018. The validity of flow approximations when simulating catchment-integrated flash floods. Journal of hydrology 556, 674--688

    2018

  4. [12]

    R., S tra, M

    Brodtkorb, A. R., S tra, M. L., Altinakar, M., 2012. Efficient shallow water simulations on gpus: Implementation, visualization, verification, and validation. Computers & Fluids 55, 1--12

    2012

  5. [13]

    Data-driven synthesis of smoke flows with cnn-based feature descriptors

    Chu, M., Thuerey, N., 2017. Data-driven synthesis of smoke flows with cnn-based feature descriptors. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 36 (4), 69

    2017

  6. [14]

    Daily reservoir inflow forecasting using artificial neural networks with stopped training approach

    Coulibaly, P., Anctil, F., Bobee, B., 2000. Daily reservoir inflow forecasting using artificial neural networks with stopped training approach. Journal of Hydrology 230 (3-4), 244--257

    2000

  7. [15]

    \"U ber die partiellen differenzengleichungen der mathematischen physik

    Courant, R., Friedrichs, K., Lewy, H., 1928. \"U ber die partiellen differenzengleichungen der mathematischen physik. Mathematische annalen 100 (1), 32--74

    1928

  8. [16]

    Flood prediction using time series data mining

    Damle, C., Yalcin, A., 2007. Flood prediction using time series data mining. Journal of Hydrology 333 (2-4), 305--316

    2007

  9. [17]

    Generating images with perceptual similarity metrics based on deep networks

    Dosovitskiy, A., Brox, T., 2016. Generating images with perceptual similarity metrics based on deep networks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems. pp. 658--666

    2016

  10. [18]

    Robots for environmental monitoring: Significant advancements and applications

    Dunbabin, M., Marques, L., 2012. Robots for environmental monitoring: Significant advancements and applications. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 19 (1), 24--39

    2012

  11. [19]

    H., 2014

    Elsafi, S. H., 2014. Artificial neural networks (anns) for flood forecasting at dongola station in the river nile, sudan. Alexandria Engineering Journal 53 (3), 655--662

    2014

  12. [20]

    Flooding, vulnerability and coping strategies: local responses to a global threat

    Few, R., 2003. Flooding, vulnerability and coping strategies: local responses to a global threat. Progress in Development Studies 3 (1), 43--58

    2003

  13. [21]

    P., 1986

    Georgakakos, K. P., 1986. A generalized stochastic hydrometeorological model for flood and flash-flood forecasting: 1. formulation. Water Resources Research 22 (13), 2083--2095

    1986

  14. [22]

    Scaling and similarity in rough channel flows

    Gioia, G., Bombardelli, F., 2001. Scaling and similarity in rough channel flows. Physical review letters 88 (1), 014501

    2001

  15. [23]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., Bengio, Y., 2014. Generative adversarial nets. In: Advances in neural information processing systems. pp. 2672--2680

    2014

  16. [24]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J., 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 770--778

    2016

  17. [25]

    A., Konev, A., Bl \"o schl, G., 2015

    Horv \'a th, Z., Waser, J., Perdig \ a o, R. A., Konev, A., Bl \"o schl, G., 2015. A two-dimensional numerical scheme of dry/wet fronts for the saint-venant system of shallow water equations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 77 (3), 159--182

    2015

  18. [26]

    B., Gibbs, M

    Humphrey, G. B., Gibbs, M. S., Dandy, G. C., Maier, H. R., 2016. A hybrid approach to monthly streamflow forecasting: integrating hydrological model outputs into a bayesian artificial neural network. Journal of Hydrology 540, 623--640

    2016

  19. [27]

    E., 1960

    Kalman, R. E., 1960. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Journal of basic Engineering 82 (1), 35--45

    1960

  20. [28]

    The data-driven approach as an operational real-time flood forecasting model

    Khac-Tien Nguyen, P., Hock-Chye Chua, L., 2012. The data-driven approach as an operational real-time flood forecasting model. Hydrological Processes 26 (19), 2878--2893

    2012

  21. [29]

    P., Ba, J., 2014

    Kingma, D. P., Ba, J., 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    V., Shirshov, G., Melnikova, N., Belleman, R

    Krzhizhanovskaya, V. V., Shirshov, G., Melnikova, N., Belleman, R. G., Rusadi, F., Broekhuijsen, B., Gouldby, B., Lhomme, J., Balis, B., Bubak, M., et al., 2011. Flood early warning system: design, implementation and computational modules. Procedia Computer Science 4, 106--115

    2011

  23. [31]

    Central-upwind schemes for the saint-venant system

    Kurganov, A., Levy, D., 2002. Central-upwind schemes for the saint-venant system. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis 36 (3), 397--425

    2002

  24. [32]

    Semidiscrete central-upwind schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws and hamilton--jacobi equations

    Kurganov, A., Noelle, S., Petrova, G., 2001. Semidiscrete central-upwind schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws and hamilton--jacobi equations. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 23 (3), 707--740

    2001

  25. [33]

    A second-order well-balanced positivity preserving central-upwind scheme for the saint-venant system

    Kurganov, A., Petrova, G., et al., 2007. A second-order well-balanced positivity preserving central-upwind scheme for the saint-venant system. Communications in Mathematical Sciences 5 (1), 133--160

    2007

  26. [34]

    A comparison of nonlinear flood forecasting methods

    Laio, F., Porporato, A., Revelli, R., Ridolfi, L., 2003. A comparison of nonlinear flood forecasting methods. Water Resources Research 39 (5)

    2003

  27. [35]

    Deep learning

    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G., 2015. Deep learning. nature 521 (7553), 436

    2015

  28. [36]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition

    LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., Haffner, P., et al., 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 86 (11), 2278--2324

    1998

  29. [37]

    Combining markov random fields and convolutional neural networks for image synthesis

    Li, C., Wand, M., 2016. Combining markov random fields and convolutional neural networks for image synthesis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 2479--2486

    2016

  30. [38]

    Numerical resolution of well-balanced shallow water equations with complex source terms

    Liang, Q., Marche, F., 2009. Numerical resolution of well-balanced shallow water equations with complex source terms. Advances in water resources 32 (6), 873--884

    2009

  31. [39]

    Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations

    MacQueen, J., et al., 1967. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. Vol. 1. Oakland, CA, USA, pp. 281--297

    1967

  32. [40]

    Conditional generative adversarial nets

    Mirza, M., Osindero, S., 2014. Conditional generative adversarial nets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Uavs for smart cities: Opportunities and challenges

    Mohammed, F., Idries, A., Mohamed, N., Al-Jaroodi, J., Jawhar, I., 2014. Uavs for smart cities: Opportunities and challenges. In: 2014 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE, pp. 267--273

    2014

  34. [42]

    E., Gruntfest, E., 2002

    Montz, B. E., Gruntfest, E., 2002. Flash flood mitigation: recommendations for research and applications. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 4 (1), 15--22

    2002

  35. [43]

    RFFS and HYRAD: Integrated systems for rainfall and river flow forecasting in real-time and their application in Yorkshire

    Moore, R., Jones, D., Black, K., Austin, R., Carrington, D., Tinnion, M., Akhondi, A., 1994. RFFS and HYRAD: Integrated systems for rainfall and river flow forecasting in real-time and their application in Yorkshire

    1994

  36. [44]

    Flood prediction using machine learning models: Literature review

    Mosavi, A., Ozturk, P., Chau, K.-w., 2018. Flood prediction using machine learning models: Literature review. Water 10 (11), 1536

    2018

  37. [45]

    Deep hidden physics models: Deep learning of nonlinear partial differential equations

    Raissi, M., 2018. Deep hidden physics models: Deep learning of nonlinear partial differential equations. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 19 (1), 932--955

    2018

  38. [46]

    E., 2017 a

    Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., Karniadakis, G. E., 2017 a . Physics informed deep learning (part i): Data-driven solutions of nonlinear partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.10561

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    E., 2017 b

    Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., Karniadakis, G. E., 2017 b . Physics informed deep learning (part ii): Data-driven discovery of nonlinear partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.10566

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Anuga user manual, release 2.0

    Roberts, S., Nielsen, O., Gray, D., Sexton, J., Davies, G., 05 2015. Anuga user manual, release 2.0

    2015

  41. [49]

    E., Hinton, G

    Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., Williams, R. J., et al., 1988. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Cognitive modeling 5 (3), 1

    1988

  42. [50]

    T., Yurekli, K., Pal, M., 2012

    Sattari, M. T., Yurekli, K., Pal, M., 2012. Performance evaluation of artificial neural network approaches in forecasting reservoir inflow. Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (6), 2649--2657

    2012

  43. [51]

    R., 1996

    Shewchuk, J. R., 1996. Triangle: Engineering a 2d quality mesh generator and delaunay triangulator. In: Workshop on Applied Computational Geometry. Springer, pp. 203--222

    1996

  44. [52]

    Dgm: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equations

    Sirignano, J., Spiliopoulos, K., 2018. Dgm: A deep learning algorithm for solving partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics 375, 1339--1364

    2018

  45. [53]

    Decentralized flood forecasting using deep neural networks

    Sit, M., Demir, I., 2019. Decentralized flood forecasting using deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.02308

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Shallow water hydrodynamics: Mathematical theory and numerical solution for a two-dimensional system of shallow-water equations

    Tan, W.-Y., 1992. Shallow water hydrodynamics: Mathematical theory and numerical solution for a two-dimensional system of shallow-water equations. Vol. 55. Elsevier

    1992

  47. [55]

    Well, how accurate is it? a study of deep learning methods for reynolds-averaged navier-stokes simulations

    Thuerey, N., Weissenow, K., Mehrotra, H., Mainali, N., Prantl, L., Hu, X., 2018. Well, how accurate is it? a study of deep learning methods for reynolds-averaged navier-stokes simulations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08217

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Accelerating eulerian fluid simulation with convolutional networks

    Tompson, J., Schlachter, K., Sprechmann, P., Perlin, K., 2017 a . Accelerating eulerian fluid simulation with convolutional networks. In: ICML

    2017

  49. [57]

    Accelerating eulerian fluid simulation with convolutional networks

    Tompson, J., Schlachter, K., Sprechmann, P., Perlin, K., 2017 b . Accelerating eulerian fluid simulation with convolutional networks. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning-Volume 70. JMLR. org, pp. 3424--3433

    2017

  50. [58]

    E., Behbahani, S

    Valipour, M., Banihabib, M. E., Behbahani, S. M. R., 2012. Parameters estimate of autoregressive moving average and autoregressive integrated moving average models and compare their ability for inflow forecasting. J Math Stat 8 (3), 330--338

    2012

  51. [59]

    E., Behbahani, S

    Valipour, M., Banihabib, M. E., Behbahani, S. M. R., 2013. Comparison of the arma, arima, and the autoregressive artificial neural network models in forecasting the monthly inflow of dez dam reservoir. Journal of hydrology 476, 433--441

    2013

  52. [60]

    B., 2013

    Vreugdenhil, C. B., 2013. Numerical methods for shallow-water flow. Vol. 13. Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  53. [61]

    Latent-space physics: Towards learning te temporal evolution of fluid flow

    Wiewel, S., Becher, M., Th \"u rey, N., 2018. Latent-space physics: Towards learning te temporal evolution of fluid flow. CoRR abs/1802.10123

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    tempogan: A temporally coherent, volumetric gan for super-resolution fluid flow

    Xie, Y., Franz, E., Chu, M., Thuerey, N., 2018. tempogan: A temporally coherent, volumetric gan for super-resolution fluid flow. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37 (4), 95

    2018

  55. [63]

    Y., O'connor, K

    Xiong, L., Shamseldin, A. Y., O'connor, K. M., 2001. A non-linear combination of the forecasts of rainfall-runoff models by the first-order takagi--sugeno fuzzy system. Journal of hydrology 245 (1-4), 196--217

    2001

  56. [64]

    Markov flow models and the flood warning problem

    Yakowitz, S., 1985. Markov flow models and the flood warning problem. Water Resources Research 21 (1), 81--88

    1985

  57. [65]

    Catastrophic collapse of water supply reservoirs in urban areas

    Zoppou, C., Roberts, S., 1999. Catastrophic collapse of water supply reservoirs in urban areas. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 125 (7), 686--695

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.