The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Flood Prediction Using Machine Learning Models: Literature Review
Open accessAbstract
Floods are among the most destructive natural disasters, which are highly complex to model. The research on the advancement of flood prediction models contributed to risk reduction, policy suggestion, minimization of the loss of human life, and reduction of the property damage associated with floods. To mimic the complex mathematical expressions of physical processes of floods, during the past two decades, machine learning (ML) methods contributed highly in the advancement of prediction systems providing better performance and cost-effective solutions. Due to the vast benefits and potential of ML, its popularity dramatically increased among hydrologists. Researchers through introducing novel ML methods and hybridizing of the existing ones aim at discovering more accurate and efficient prediction models. The main contribution of this paper is to demonstrate the state of the art of ML models in flood prediction and to give insight into the most suitable models. In this paper, the literature where ML models were benchmarked through a qualitative analysis of robustness, accuracy, effectiveness, and speed are particularly investigated to provide an extensive overview on the various ML algorithms used in the field. The performance comparison of ML models presents an in-depth understanding of the different techniques within the framework of a comprehensive evaluation and discussion. As a result, this paper introduces the most promising prediction methods for both long-term and short-term floods. Furthermore, the major trends in improving the quality of the flood prediction models are investigated. Among them, hybridization, data decomposition, algorithm ensemble, and model optimization are reported as the most effective strategies for the improvement of ML methods. This survey can be used as a guideline for hydrologists as well as climate scientists in choosing the proper ML method according to the prediction task.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Learning representations by back-propagating errors
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986) · Nature · doi:10.1038/323533a0 · Cited by 31,892
Ensemble methods in machine learning
Dietterich, T. G. (2000) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45014-9_1 · Cited by 8,408
Cited by
COVID-19 Pandemic Prediction for Hungary; A Hybrid Machine Learning Approach
Pinter, G., Felde, I., Mosavi, A., Ghamisi, P., & Gloaguen, R. (2020) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math8060890 · Cited by 328
Self-citationGiri, S. (2021) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116332 · Cited by 328
Hybrid forecasting: blending climate predictions with AI models
Slater, L. J., Arnal, L., Boucher, M.-A., Chang, A. Y.-Y., Moulds, S., Murphy, C., Nearing, G., Shalev, G., Shen, C., Speight, L., et al. (2023) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-27-1865-2023 · Cited by 281
Abid, S. K., Sulaiman, N., Chan, S. W., Nazir, U., Abid, M., Han, H., Ariza-Montes, A., & Vega-Muñoz, A. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su132212560 · Cited by 267
Exploring Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 diversity for flood inundation mapping using deep learning
Konapala, G., Kumar, S. V., & Khalique Ahmad, S. (2021) · ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2021.08.016 · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- Mosavi, A., Ozturk, P., & Chau, K.-W.
- Venue
- Water
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2018-10-27
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1536
- ISSN
- 2073-4441 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2899023746
- Cited by
- 1,672
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 42.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Flood Prediction Using Machine Learning Models: Literature Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/w10111536
- The paper
- Mosavi, A., Ozturk, P., & Chau, K.-W. (2018). Flood Prediction Using Machine Learning Models: Literature Review. Water. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111536
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.