A Comparison Review based on Classifiers and Regression Models for the Investigation of Flash Floods

Several regions of the world have been affected by one of the natural disasters named as flash floods. Many villagers who live near stream or dam, they suffer a lot in terms of property, cattle and human lives loss. Conventional early warning systems are not up to the mark for the early warning announcements. Diversified approaches have been carried out for the identification of flash floods with less false alarm rate. Forecasting approaches includes some errors and ambiguity due to the incompetent processing algorithms and measurement readings. Process variables like stream flow, water level, water color, precipitation velocity, wind speed, wave’s pattern and cloud to ground (CG) flashes have been measured for the robust identification of flash floods. A vibrant competent algorithm would be required for the investigation of flash floods with less false alarm rate. In this research paper classifiers have been applied on the collected data set so that any researcher could easily know that which classifier is competent and can be further enhanced by combining it with other algorithms. A novel comprehensive parametric comparison has been performed to investigate the classification accuracy for the robust classification of false alarms. For the better accuracy more than one process variables have been measured but still contained some false alarm. Appropriate combination of sensor was integrated to increase the accuracy in results as multi-modal sensing device has been designed to collect the data. Linear discriminant analysis, logistic regression, quadratic support vector machine, knearest neighbor and Ensemble bagged tree have been applied to the collected data set for the data classification. Results have been obtained in the MATLAB and discussed in detail in the research paper. The worst accuracy of the classification (62%) has been achieved by the coarse k-NN classifier that means coarse k-NN produced 38% false negative rate that is not acceptable in the case of forecasting. Ensemble bagged trees produced best classification results as it achieved 99 % accuracy and 1% error rate. Furthermore, according to the comprehensive parametric comparison of regression models Quadratic SVM found to be the worst with mean square error of 0.5551 and time elapsed 13.159 seconds. On the other hand, Exponential Gaussian process regression performed better than the other existing approaches with the minimum root mean squared error of 0.0002 and prediction speed of 35000 observations per second. Keywords—Flash floods; classification; SVM; k-NN; logistic regression; quadratic SVN; ensemble bagged trees; exponential GPR

[1]  Sheroz Khan,et al.  Flash Floods Prediction using Real Time data: An Implementation of ANN-PSO with less False Alarm , 2019, 2019 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC).

[2]  Khosak Achawakorn,et al.  Flash flood warning system using SCADA system: Laboratory level , 2014, 2014 International Electrical Engineering Congress (iEECON).

[3]  Nishant Bhardwaj,et al.  Controls and intelligence behind “NISTARA-2” — A disaster management machine (DMM) , 2014, 2014 Innovative Applications of Computational Intelligence on Power, Energy and Controls with their impact on Humanity (CIPECH).

[4]  Sotiris B. Kotsiantis,et al.  Bagging Model Trees for Classification Problems , 2005, Panhellenic Conference on Informatics.

[5]  S. Muthukumar,et al.  Network based flash flood alert system , 2018, 2018 Conference on Emerging Devices and Smart Systems (ICEDSS).

[6]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Evaluation of Gaussian processes and other methods for non-linear regression , 1997 .

[7]  Jianping Li,et al.  The research of the fast SVM classifier method , 2015, 2015 12th International Computer Conference on Wavelet Active Media Technology and Information Processing (ICCWAMTIP).

[8]  Surinder Singh,et al.  An ANN approach for false alarm detection in microwave breast cancer detection , 2016, 2016 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[9]  Ramli Adnan,et al.  Modelling of flood prediction system using hybrid NNARX and Extended Kalman Filter , 2017, 2017 IEEE 13th International Colloquium on Signal Processing & its Applications (CSPA).

[10]  Rahat Iqbal,et al.  A Critical Evaluation of the Rational Need for an IT Management System for Flash Flood Events in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia , 2013, 2013 Sixth International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering.

[11]  David P. Williams,et al.  Exploiting Environmental Information for Improved Underwater Target Classification in Sonar Imagery , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[12]  M. S. Mazliham,et al.  Geomagnetic field measurement at earth surface: Flash flood forecasting using tesla meter , 2017, 2017 International Conference on Engineering Technology and Technopreneurship (ICE2T).

[13]  Kushsairy Kadir,et al.  A Novel Approach for the Investigation of Flash Floods using Soil Flux and CO2: An Implementation of MLP with Less False Alarm Rate , 2018, 2018 2nd International Conference on Smart Sensors and Application (ICSSA).

[14]  Paween Khoenkaw,et al.  A low-cost flash flood monitoring system , 2015, 2015 7th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ICITEE).

[15]  Tomas Krejci,et al.  Early warning of flash floods based on the weather radar , 2015, Proceedings of the 2015 16th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC).

[16]  Zeeshan Shahid,et al.  Prior investigation for flash floods and hurricanes, concise capsulization of hydrological technologies and instrumentation: A survey , 2017, 2017 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Engineering Technologies and Social Sciences (ICETSS).

[17]  Xiangliang Zhang,et al.  Flash Flood Detection in Urban Cities Using Ultrasonic and Infrared Sensors , 2016, IEEE Sensors Journal.

[18]  S. G. Deshmukh,et al.  A genetic algorithmic approach for optimization of surface roughness prediction model , 2002 .