the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Bayesian calibration of a flood simulator using binary flood extent observations
Abstract. Computational simulators of complex physical processes, such as inundations, require a robust characterization of the uncertainties involved to be useful for flood hazard and risk analysis. While flood extent data, as obtained from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery, has become widely available, no methodologies have been implemented that can robustly assimilate this information source into fully probabilistic estimations of the model parameters, model structural deficiencies, and model predictions. This paper proposes a fully Bayesian framework to calibrate a 2D physics-based inundation model using a single observation of flood extent, explicitly including uncertainty in the floodplain and channel roughness parameters, simulator structural deficiencies, and observation errors. The proposed approach is compared to the current state-of-practice Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) framework for calibration and with a simpler Bayesian model. We found that discrepancies between the computational simulator output and the flood extent observation are spatially correlated, and calibration models that do not account for this, such as GLUE, might consistently mispredict flooding over large regions. The added structural deficiency term succeeds in capturing and correcting for this spatial behavior, improving the rate of correctly predicted pixels. We also found that binary data does not have information relative to the magnitude of the observed process (e.g. flood depths), raising issues in the identifiability of the roughness parameters, and the additive terms of structural deficiency and observation errors. The proposed methodology, while computationally challenging, is proven to perform better than existing techniques. It also has the potential to consistently combine observed flood extent data with other data such as sensor information and crowd-sourced data, something which is not currently possible using GLUE calibration framework.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1022 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1022 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-760', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Oct 2022
In general, this study presents a novel method for the calibration of a flood simulator using binary flood extent observations. The authors compare their method with the most common method (GLUE) used for calibration and a simpler Bayesian model. The methodology demonstrated using the raster-based Lisflood-fp model. The study area is a short reach on the upper river Thames in Oxfordshire, England. In general, the entire manuscript is well-written, well-referenced, and well-structured. The approaches followed by the authors have novel parts and are very interesting for the hydrological community. Finally, the results are sufficient and support the interpretations and conclusions.Â
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mariano Balbi, 25 Nov 2022
Thanks a lot for comments and revision. Your observations will be taken into account in the revised version of the paper. Please find attached your revised pdf with replies on all your comments.
Regarding the positioning of figures and tables, the final position might not be improvable a whole lot since it depends on text size and is done automatically by latex as per the copernicus template. We will maker an effort on improve some of them however.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Mariano Balbi, 25 Nov 2022
Thanks a lot for comments and revision. Your observations will be taken into account in the revised version of the paper. Please find attached your revised pdf with replies on all your comments.
Regarding the positioning of figures and tables, the final position might not be improvable a whole lot since it depends on text size and is done automatically by latex as per the copernicus template. We will maker an effort on improve some of them however.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mariano Balbi, 25 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-760', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Oct 2022
The manuscript analyzes and compares three broad statistical approaches to learn 2D-flood model parameters from binary observations of flood extent while accounting for various sources of uncertainty. The methodology and the scientific motivation behind this comparative analysis are clearly explained. While there is a large body of scientific literature in hydrology on the effects of using various likelihood functions for time series data, this manuscript fills a critical gap related to our understanding of 2D-flood models and corresponding appropriate likelihood functions/error descriptions for inference using spatially-distributed binary data. Even though simulations are run on only a single flood event, the manuscript provides several valuable and generalizable insights from its results and discussion, which are especially relevant for the researchers working on uncertainty analysis for such hydrologic models. I congratulate the authors for this work and recommend publication after minor revisions (please see the highlighted manuscript for comments).
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Mariano Balbi, 25 Nov 2022
Thanks a lot for comments and revision. Your observations will definitely maker for an improved and more insightful version of the paper, and will be taken into account in the revised version. Please find attached your revised pdf with replies on all your comments.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Mariano Balbi, 25 Nov 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-760', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Oct 2022
In general, this study presents a novel method for the calibration of a flood simulator using binary flood extent observations. The authors compare their method with the most common method (GLUE) used for calibration and a simpler Bayesian model. The methodology demonstrated using the raster-based Lisflood-fp model. The study area is a short reach on the upper river Thames in Oxfordshire, England. In general, the entire manuscript is well-written, well-referenced, and well-structured. The approaches followed by the authors have novel parts and are very interesting for the hydrological community. Finally, the results are sufficient and support the interpretations and conclusions.Â
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mariano Balbi, 25 Nov 2022
Thanks a lot for comments and revision. Your observations will be taken into account in the revised version of the paper. Please find attached your revised pdf with replies on all your comments.
Regarding the positioning of figures and tables, the final position might not be improvable a whole lot since it depends on text size and is done automatically by latex as per the copernicus template. We will maker an effort on improve some of them however.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Mariano Balbi, 25 Nov 2022
Thanks a lot for comments and revision. Your observations will be taken into account in the revised version of the paper. Please find attached your revised pdf with replies on all your comments.
Regarding the positioning of figures and tables, the final position might not be improvable a whole lot since it depends on text size and is done automatically by latex as per the copernicus template. We will maker an effort on improve some of them however.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mariano Balbi, 25 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-760', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Oct 2022
The manuscript analyzes and compares three broad statistical approaches to learn 2D-flood model parameters from binary observations of flood extent while accounting for various sources of uncertainty. The methodology and the scientific motivation behind this comparative analysis are clearly explained. While there is a large body of scientific literature in hydrology on the effects of using various likelihood functions for time series data, this manuscript fills a critical gap related to our understanding of 2D-flood models and corresponding appropriate likelihood functions/error descriptions for inference using spatially-distributed binary data. Even though simulations are run on only a single flood event, the manuscript provides several valuable and generalizable insights from its results and discussion, which are especially relevant for the researchers working on uncertainty analysis for such hydrologic models. I congratulate the authors for this work and recommend publication after minor revisions (please see the highlighted manuscript for comments).
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Mariano Balbi, 25 Nov 2022
Thanks a lot for comments and revision. Your observations will definitely maker for an improved and more insightful version of the paper, and will be taken into account in the revised version. Please find attached your revised pdf with replies on all your comments.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Mariano Balbi, 25 Nov 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Model code and software
Code repository Mariano Balbi https://github.com/mbalbi/bayesian-inundation.git
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
323 | 95 | 17 | 435 | 6 | 3 |
- HTML: 323
- PDF: 95
- XML: 17
- Total: 435
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
David Charles Bonaventure Lallemant
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1022 KB) - Metadata XML