Fusing Earth observation embeddings and spaceborne terrain with meteorological forcing for flood peak depth prediction from high-water marks

Flood peak depth on normally dry land governs damage and risk to life, but is observed only sparsely, by post-event high-water mark (HWM) surveys, and depth derived from satellite flood extent is produced after the event and inherits the vertical error of the digital elevation model (DEM) it is computed from. Deep-learning flood models have in turn been trained on hydrodynamic simulations rather than on observed depths. We ask whether flood peak depth can be learned from field observations and predicted before the peak from spaceborne terrain, geospatial foundation-model embeddings and antecedent meteorological forcing. We assembled 5689 USGS HWM surveys from 39 events (2011-2025) in 24 U.S. states and Puerto Rico, assigned each a peak time from nearby sensors, paired each with a rain-free window at the same site, and linked them to Copernicus GLO-30 terrain, AlphaEarth embeddings and 144 h of hourly forcing masked to the lead time. A cross-modal fusion network trained on these observations predicts depth at the surveyed marks with a mean absolute error of 0.39 m 6 h ahead of the peak. Supervision by surveyed depth corrects the DEM error implicitly: differencing the measured peak water level with the same DEM gives 0.93 m at the same marks, 2.4 times larger, although it uses the measured water level and the model does not. Forcing accounts for 77% of the attributed reduction in depth error; terrain and the embeddings are statistically equivalent to each other and contribute the remaining 23%. On eleven held-out events the model still separates flooded from rain-free conditions but no longer resolves depth at the marks (R2 = 0.03), so the skill reported here is confined to the events and regions sampled. Field-surveyed depths can thus supervise flood depth prediction and correct terrain error that extent-based estimation cannot, while transfer to unseen storms remains the open problem.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
arXiv (Cornell University)
Published
2026-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2611.05220
Primary Topic
Flood Risk Assessment and Management
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Fusing Earth observation embeddings and spaceborne terrain with meteorological forcing for flood peak depth prediction from high-water marks

Dingqi Ye, Upmanu Lall, Venkatesh Merwade, Wen Zhou et al.
arXiv (Cornell University)
Flood Risk Assessment and Management
preprint

Fusing Earth observation embeddings and spaceborne terrain with meteorological forcing for flood peak depth prediction from high-water marks

Dingqi Ye, Upmanu Lall, Venkatesh Merwade, Wen Zhou, Shaowen Wang
preprint en

Abstract

Flood peak depth on normally dry land governs damage and risk to life, but is observed only sparsely, by post-event high-water mark (HWM) surveys, and depth derived from satellite flood extent is produced after the event and inherits the vertical error of the digital elevation model (DEM) it is computed from. Deep-learning flood models have in turn been trained on hydrodynamic simulations rather than on observed depths. We ask whether flood peak depth can be learned from field observations and predicted before the peak from spaceborne terrain, geospatial foundation-model embeddings and antecedent meteorological forcing. We assembled 5689 USGS HWM surveys from 39 events (2011-2025) in 24 U.S. states and Puerto Rico, assigned each a peak time from nearby sensors, paired each with a rain-free window at the same site, and linked them to Copernicus GLO-30 terrain, AlphaEarth embeddings and 144 h of hourly forcing masked to the lead time. A cross-modal fusion network trained on these observations predicts depth at the surveyed marks with a mean absolute error of 0.39 m 6 h ahead of the peak. Supervision by surveyed depth corrects the DEM error implicitly: differencing the measured peak water level with the same DEM gives 0.93 m at the same marks, 2.4 times larger, although it uses the measured water level and the model does not. Forcing accounts for 77% of the attributed reduction in depth error; terrain and the embeddings are statistically equivalent to each other and contribute the remaining 23%. On eleven held-out events the model still separates flooded from rain-free conditions but no longer resolves depth at the marks (R2 = 0.03), so the skill reported here is confined to the events and regions sampled. Field-surveyed depths can thus supervise flood depth prediction and correct terrain error that extent-based estimation cannot, while transfer to unseen storms remains the open problem.

arXiv (Cornell University)
Flood Risk Assessment and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon