The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Flood forecasting with machine learning models in an operational framework
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. Google's operational flood forecasting system was developed to provide accurate real-time flood warnings to agencies and the public with a focus on riverine floods in large, gauged rivers. It became operational in 2018 and has since expanded geographically. This forecasting system consists of four subsystems: data validation, stage forecasting, inundation modeling, and alert distribution. Machine learning is used for two of the subsystems. Stage forecasting is modeled with the long short-term memory (LSTM) networks and the linear models. Flood inundation is computed with the thresholding and the manifold models, where the former computes inundation extent and the latter computes both inundation extent and depth. The manifold model, presented here for the first time, provides a machine-learning alternative to hydraulic modeling of flood inundation. When evaluated on historical data, all models achieve sufficiently high-performance metrics for operational use. The LSTM showed higher skills than the linear model, while the thresholding and manifold models achieved similar performance metrics for modeling inundation extent. During the 2021 monsoon season, the flood warning system was operational in India and Bangladesh, covering flood-prone regions around rivers with a total area close to 470 000 km2, home to more than 350 000 000 people. More than 100 000 000 flood alerts were sent to affected populations, to relevant authorities, and to emergency organizations. Current and future work on the system includes extending coverage to additional flood-prone locations and improving modeling capabilities and accuracy.
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
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325
Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone
Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., & Moore, R. (2017) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031 · Cited by 14,719
New Global Hydrography Derived from Spaceborne Elevation Data
Lehner, B., Verdin, K., & Jarvis, A. (2008) · Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union · doi:10.1029/2008eo100001 · Cited by 2,411
Torres, R., Snoeij, P., Geudtner, D., Bibby, D., Davidson, M., Attema, E., Potin, P., Rommen, B., Floury, N., Brown, M., et al. (2012) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2011.05.028 · Cited by 2,235
Rainfall–runoff modelling using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks
(2018) · doi:10.5194/hess-22-6005-2018 · Cited by 2,114
Beyond Accuracy, F-Score and ROC: A Family of Discriminant Measures for Performance Evaluation
Sokolova, M., Japkowicz, N., & Szpakowicz, S. (2006) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/11941439_114 · Cited by 1,974
Flood Prediction Using Machine Learning Models: Literature Review
Mosavi, A., Ozturk, P., & Chau, K.-W. (2018) · Water · doi:10.3390/w10111536 · Cited by 1,672
Artificial Neural Network Modeling of the Rainfall‐Runoff Process
Hsu, K., Gupta, H. V., & Sorooshian, S. (1995) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/95wr01955 · Cited by 1,515
Cited by
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
Self-citationMachine learning applications for weather and climate need greater focus on extremes
Watson, P. A. G. (2022) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac9d4e · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Nevo, S., Morin, E., Gerzi Rosenthal, A., Metzger, A., Barshai, C., Weitzner, D., Voloshin, D., Kratzert, F., Elidan, G., Dror, G., Begelman, G., Nearing, G., Shalev, G., Noga, H., Shavitt, I., Yuklea, L., Royz, M., Giladi, N., Peled Levi, N., Reich, O., Gilon, O., Maor, R., Timnat, S., Shechter, T., Anisimov, V., Gigi, Y., Levin, Y., Moshe, Z., Ben-Haim, Z., Hassidim, A., & Matias, Y.
- Venue
- Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2022-08-05
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 4013-4032
- ISSN
- 1027-5606 (ISSN-L)
- 1607-7938
- OpenAlex
- W3210744571
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 53
- FWCI
- 14.37
- 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 forecasting with machine learning models in an operational framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/hess-26-4013-2022
- The paper
- Nevo, S., Morin, E., Gerzi Rosenthal, A., Metzger, A., Barshai, C., Weitzner, D., Voloshin, D., Kratzert, F., Elidan, G., Dror, G., Begelman, G., Nearing, G., Shalev, G., Noga, H., Shavitt, I., Yuklea, L., Royz, M., Giladi, N., Peled Levi, N., . . . Matias, Y. (2022). Flood forecasting with machine learning models in an operational framework. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4013-2022
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.