Abstract

The increasing amount of rain produces a number of issues in Kerala, particularly in urban regions where the drainage system is frequently unable to handle a significant amount of water in such a short duration. Meanwhile, standard flood detection results are inaccurate for complex phenomena and cannot handle enormous quantities of data. In order to overcome those drawbacks and enhance the outcomes of conventional flood detection models, deep learning techniques are extensively used in flood control. Therefore, a novel deep hybrid model for flood prediction (DHMFP) with a combined Harris hawks shuffled shepherd optimization (CHHSSO)-based training algorithm is introduced for flood prediction. Initially, the input satellite image is preprocessed by the median filtering method. Then the preprocessed image is segmented using the cubic chaotic map weighted based k-means clustering algorithm. After that, based on the segmented image, features like difference vegetation index (DVI), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), modified transformed vegetation index (MTVI), green vegetation index (GVI), and soil adjusted vegetation index (SAVI) are extracted. The features are subjected to a hybrid model for predicting floods based on the extracted feature set. The hybrid model includes models like CNN (convolutional neural network) and deep ResNet classifiers. Also, to enhance the prediction performance, the CNN and deep ResNet models are fine-tuned by selecting the optimal weights by the combined Harris hawks shuffled shepherd optimization (CHHSSO) algorithm during the training process. This hybrid approach decreases the number of errors while improving the efficacy of deep neural networks with additional neural layers. From the result study, it clearly shows that the proposed work has obtained sensitivity (93.48%), specificity (98.29%), accuracy (94.98%), false negative rate (0.02%), and false positive rate (0.02%) on analysis. Furthermore, the proposed DHMFP–CHHSSO displays better performances in terms of sensitivity (0.932), specificity (0.977), accuracy (0.952), false negative rate (0.0858), and false positive rate (0.036), respectively.

Citations

Authors (5)