skip to main content
10.1145/3583780.3615105acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

UrbanFloodKG: An Urban Flood Knowledge Graph System for Risk Assessment

Published:21 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Increasing numbers of people live in flood-prone areas worldwide. With continued development, urban flood will become more frequent, which has caused casualties and property damage. Researchers have been dedicating to urban flood risk assessments in recent years. However, current research is still facing the challenges of multi-modal data fusion and knowledge representation of urban flood events. Therefore, in this paper, we propose an Urban Flood Knowledge Graph (UrbanFloodKG) system that enables KG to support urban flood risk assessment. The system consists of data layer, graph layer, algorithm layer, and application layer, which implements knowledge extraction and storage functions, integrates knowledge representation learning models and graph neural network models to support link prediction and node classification tasks. We conduct model comparison experiments on link prediction and node classification tasks based on urban flood event data from Guangzhou, and demonstrate the effectiveness of the models used. Our experiments prove that the accuracy of risk assessment can reach 91% when using GEN, which provides a a promising research direction for urban flood risk assessment.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

video.mp4

mp4

259 MB

References

  1. Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. ACM, New York, 1247--1250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. NeurIPS, Lake Tahoe, NV, United states.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin D. Bowes, Jeffrey M. Sadler, Mohamed M. Morsy, Madhur Behl, and Jonathan L. Goodall. 2019. Forecasting groundwater table in a flood prone coastal city with long short-term memory and recurrent neural networks. Water (Switzerland), Vol. 11, 5 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/w11051098Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Shaked Brody, Uri Alon, and Eran Yahav. 2022. HOW ATTENTIVE ARE GRAPH ATTENTION NETWORKS?. In ICLR 2022 - 10th International Conference on Learning Representations. ICLR, Virtual, Online.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Tsang-Jung Chang, Chia-Ho Wang, and Albert S Chen. 2015. A novel approach to model dynamic flow interactions between storm sewer system and overland surface for different land covers in urban areas. Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 524 (2015), 662--679.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Xiaojun Chen, Shengbin Jia, and Yang Xiang. 2020. A review: Knowledge reasoning over knowledge graph. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 141 (2020), 112948.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Luca Costabello, Sumit Pai, Chan Le Van, Rory McGrath, Nick McCarthy, and Pedro Tabacof. 2019. AmpliGraph: a Library for Representation Learning on Knowledge Graphs. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2595043Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Alin Deutsch, Yu Xu, Mingxi Wu, and Victor Lee. 2019. TigerGraph: A native MPP graph database. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08248 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Boliang Dong, Junqiang Xia, Meirong Zhou, Qijie Li, Reza Ahmadian, and Roger A Falconer. 2022. Integrated modeling of 2D urban surface and 1D sewer hydrodynamic processes and flood risk assessment of people and vehicles. Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 827 (2022), 154098.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Jian Du, Shanghang Zhang, Guanhang Wu, Jose M.F. Moura, and Soummya Kar. 2017. Topology adaptive graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10370 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Pavlos Fafalios, Konstantina Konsolaki, Lida Charami, Kostas Petrakis, Manos Paterakis, Dimitris Angelakis, Yannis Tzitzikas, Chrysoula Bekiari, and Martin Doerr. 2021. Towards Semantic Interoperability inHistorical Research: Documenting Research Data and Knowledge withSynthesis. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12922 LNCS. Springer, Virtual, Online, 682 -- 698. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3-030--88361--4_40Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Matthias Fey and Jan E. Lenssen. 2019. Fast graph representation learning with PyTorch Geometric. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02428 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Qingyu Guo, Fuzhen Zhuang, Chuan Qin, Hengshu Zhu, Xing Xie, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. 2020. A survey on knowledge graph-based recommender systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 34, 8 (2020), 3549--3568.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Vol. 2016-December. IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, United states, 770 -- 778. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Aidan Hogan. 2022. Knowledge Graphs: A Guided Tour. In OpenAccess Series in Informatics, Vol. 99. Schloss Dagstuhl- Leibniz-Zentrum fur Informatik GmbH, Dagstuhl Publishing, Bergen, Norway. https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.AIB.2022.1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. H. Huang, W. Liao, X. Lei, C. Wang, Z. Cai, and H. Wang. 2023. An urban DEM reconstruction method based on multisource data fusion for urban pluvial flooding simulation. Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 617 (2023), 128825.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Xiao Huang, Jingyuan Zhang, Dingcheng Li, and Ping Li. 2019. Knowledge graph embedding based question answering. In WSDM 2019 - Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 105 -- 113. https://doi.org/10.1145/3289600.3290956Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Yanbo Huang, Zhong-xin Chen, YU Tao, Xiang-zhi Huang, and Xing-fa Gu. 2018. Agricultural remote sensing big data: Management and applications. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, Vol. 17, 9 (2018), 1915--1931.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Zhiheng Huang, Wei Xu, and Kai Yu. 2015. Bidirectional LSTM-CRF models for sequence tagging. CoRR, Vol. abs/1508.01991 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, Pablo N Mendes, Sebastian Hellmann, Mohamed Morsey, Patrick Van Kleef, S"oren Auer, et al. 2015. DBpedia--a large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from Wikipedia. Semantic Web, Vol. 6, 2 (2015), 167--195.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Guohao Li, Chenxin Xiong, Ali Thabet, and Bernard Ghanem. 2020. Deepergcn: All you need to train deeper gcns. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07739 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhe Li. 2021. Mountainous flood risk analysis and mapping in riverside town based on geographic information system and hydraulic model. In 2021 7th International Conference on Hydraulic and Civil Engineering & Smart Water Conservancy and Intelligent Disaster Reduction Forum (ICHCE & SWIDR). IEEE, Nanjing, China, 852--855. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHCESWIDR54323.2021.9656405Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Yu Liu, Jingtao Ding, Yanjie Fu, and Yong Li. 2023. UrbanKG: An Urban Knowledge Graph System. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, Vol. 14, 4 (2023), 1--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Yang Lu, Qiang Liu, Deyi Dai, Xiang Xiao, Hai Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Hua Wu. 2022. Unified Structure Generation for Universal Information Extraction. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL, Dublin, Ireland, 5755--5772.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Hai-Min Lyu, Shui-Long Shen, An-Nan Zhou, and Wan-Huan Zhou. 2019. Flood risk assessment of metro systems in a subsiding environment using the interval FAHP-FCA approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 50 (2019), 101682.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Xuezhe Ma and Eduard Hovy. 2016. End-to-end sequence labeling via bi-directional LSTM-CNNs-CRF. In 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2016 - Long Papers, Vol. 2. Elsevier, Berlin, Germany, 1064 -- 1074. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/p16--1101Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In 1st International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2013 - Workshop Track Proceedings. ICLR, Scottsdale, AZ, United states.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. George A Miller. 1995. WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun. ACM, Vol. 38, 11 (1995), 39--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. João Monteiro, Filipe Sá, and Jorge Bernardino. 2023. Graph Databases Assessment: JanusGraph, Neo4j, and TigerGraph. In Perspectives and Trends in Education and Technology: Selected Papers from ICITED 2022. Springer, Singapore, 655--665.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Fernando Morante-Carballo, Néstor Montalván-Burbano, Mija'il Arias-Hidalgo, Luis Dom'inguez-Granda, Boris Apolo-Masache, and Paúl Carrión-Mero. 2022. Flood Models: An Exploratory Analysis and Research Trends. Water, Vol. 14, 16 (2022), 2488.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Marcel Motta, Miguel de Castro Neto, and Pedro Sarmento. 2021. A mixed approach for urban flood prediction using Machine Learning and GIS. International journal of disaster risk reduction, Vol. 56 (2021), 102154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Maximilian Nickel, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Tomaso Poggio. 2016. Holographic Embeddings of Knowledge Graphs. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI, Phoenix, AZ, United States, 1955--1961.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Jiaqi Peng and Jianmin Zhang. 2022. Urban flooding risk assessment based on GIS-game theory combination weight: A case study of Zhengzhou City. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 77 (2022), 103080.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Jay Pujara, Hui Miao, Lise Getoor, and William Cohen. 2013. Knowledge Graph Identification. In The Semantic Web -- ISWC 2013. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 542--557.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Haris Rahadianto, Arna Fariza, and Jauari Akhmad Nur Hasim. 2015. Risk-level assessment system on Bengawan Solo River basin flood prone areas using analytic hierarchy process and natural breaks: Study case: East Java. In 2015 International Conference on Data and Software Engineering (ICoDSE). IEEE, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 195--200. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICODSE.2015.7436997Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Daniel Ritter, Luigi Dell'Aquila, Andrii Lomakin, and Emanuele Tagliaferri. 2021. Orientdb: A nosql, open source MMDMS. In BICOD. CEUR-WS. org, 10--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. D. Ruffinelli, S. Broscheit, and R. Gemulla. 2020. You can teach an old dog new tricks! On training knowledge graph embeddings. In Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Learning Representations. ICLR, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Omar Seleem, Georgy Ayzel, Arthur Costa Tomaz de Souza, Axel Bronstert, and Maik Heistermann. 2022. Towards urban flood susceptibility mapping using data-driven models in Berlin, Germany. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, Vol. 13, 1 (2022), 1640--1662.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Amit Singhal et al. 2012. Introducing the knowledge graph: things, not strings. Official google blog, Vol. 5, 16 (2012), 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Xuan Song, Quanshi Zhang, Yoshihide Sekimoto, and Ryosuke Shibasaki. 2014. Intelligent system for urban emergency management during large-scale disaster. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1. Elsevier, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 458--464.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Fabian M. Suchanek, Gjergji Kasneci, and Gerhard Weikum. 2007. Yago: A core of semantic knowledge. In 16th International World Wide Web Conference, WWW2007. ACM, 1515 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10036--5701, United States, 697 -- 706. https://doi.org/10.1145/1242572.1242667Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Kiran K Thekumparampil, Chong Wang, Sewoong Oh, and Li-Jia Li. 2018. Attention-based graph neural network for semi-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.03735 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Theo Trouillon, Johannes Welbl, Sebastian Riedel, Eric Ciaussier, and Guillaume Bouchard. 2016. Complex embeddings for simple link prediction. In 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2016, Vol. 5. IMLS, New York City, NY, United states, 3021 -- 3032.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Denny Vrandevc i'c and Markus Kr"otzsch. 2014. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Commun. ACM, Vol. 57, 10 (2014), 78--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Quan Wang, Zhendong Mao, Bin Wang, and Li Guo. 2017. Knowledge graph embedding: A survey of approaches and applications. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 29, 12 (2017), 2724--2743.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Yuntao Wang, Albert S Chen, Guangtao Fu, Slobodan Djordjević, Chi Zhang, and Dragan A Savić. 2018. An integrated framework for high-resolution urban flood modelling considering multiple information sources and urban features. Environmental modelling & software, Vol. 107 (2018), 85--95.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Jim Webber. 2012. A programmatic introduction to Neo4J. Tucson, AZ, United states, 217 --. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2384716.2384777Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Felix Wu, Tianyi Zhang, Amauri Holanda de Souza, Christopher Fifty, Tao Yu, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2019. Simplifying graph convolutional networks. In 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2019, Vol. 2019-June. Springer, Long Beach, CA, United states, 11884 -- 11894.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Xianhua Wu, Ji Guo, Xianhua Wu, and Ji Guo. 2021. A new economic loss assessment system for urban severe rainfall and flooding disasters based on big data fusion. Economic impacts and emergency management of disasters in China (2021), 259--287.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Anze Xie, Wei Hu, Jiaxin Huang, Qi Zhang, and Jian Pei. 2021. Demo of marius: a system for large-scale graph embeddings. VLDB, Vol. 14, 12 (2021), 2759--2762. https://doi.org/10.14778/3463956.3463988Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Keyulu Xu, Stefanie Jegelka, Weihua Hu, and Jure Leskovec. 2019. How powerful are graph neural networks?. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Learning Representations. ICLR, New Orleans, LA, United States.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Bishan Yang, Wen-tau Yih, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, and Li Deng. 2015. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015 - Conference Track Proceedings. ICLR, San Diego, CA, United states.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. F Ye, X Sheng, N Nedjah, et al. 2023. A Benchmark for Performance Evaluation of a Multi-Model Database vs. Polyglot Persistence. Journal of Database Management (JDM), Vol. 34, 3 (2023), 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. D. Yu, C. Zhu, Y. Yang, and M. Zeng. 2022b. Jaket: Joint pre-training of knowledge graph and language understanding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 36. AAAI, Virtual, Online, 11630--11638.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Wenlin Yu, Chenghua Zhu, Zuchao Li, Zhen Hu, Qingyun Wang, Heng Ji, and Meng Jiang. 2022a. A survey of knowledge-enhanced text generation. Comput. Surveys, Vol. 54, 11s (2022), 1--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. L. Zhang, H. Qin, J. Mao, X. Cao, and G. Fu. 2023. High temporal resolution urban flood prediction using attention-based LSTM models. Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 620 (2023), 129499.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. L. Zhong, J. Wu, Q. Li, H. Peng, and X. Wu. 2023. A Comprehensive Survey on Automatic Knowledge Graph Construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05019v1 (2023).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Alan D. Ziegler. 2012. Reduce urban flood vulnerability. NATURE, Vol. 481, 7380 (JAN 12 2012), 145. https://doi.org/10.1038/481145bGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. UrbanFloodKG: An Urban Flood Knowledge Graph System for Risk Assessment

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CIKM '23: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
      October 2023
      5508 pages
      ISBN:9798400701245
      DOI:10.1145/3583780

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 October 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

      Upcoming Conference

    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)159
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)35

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader