Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Flood emergency agencies increasingly combine crowdsourced road reports with scarce unmanned-aerial-vehicle (UAV) inspections, yet panic, stale forwarding, and deliberate rumours can distort road-passability beliefs and redirect relief. This study develops a decision framework for fusing reports when source credibility is uncertain or adversarially exploited and for choosing whether the next trusted observation should inspect a road or recalibrate a reporting source. Credibility is represented by a data-driven ambiguity set and rumours by bounded contamination, yielding a distributionally robust credal posterior and min-max dispatch. We derive the dual value of verification-road-state clarification and calibration spillover-and prove a contamination threshold τ* at which the preferred action switches from road inspection to source recalibration. We further bound robust loss and characterize a strategic relocating attacker. On synthetic benchmarks, non-robust regret rises from 142 to 297 stranded passengers as contamination reaches 0.5, whereas robust regret remains within 105-168; the predicted switch occurs near τ* = 0.13-0.16. In a replay of the 20 July 2021 Zhengzhou flood, non-robust fusion reverses a blocked-road assessment and propagates error across about 62 cells, while robust fusion preserves the assessment and one verification recalibrates about 59 reports. In a Zhengzhou road-network decision test, eight baselines incur 233-300 stranded-passenger equivalents under the rumour, whereas the robust policy retains clean-evidence delivery. The framework provides flood-response agencies with a principled rule for allocating scarce verification when crowdsourced road information may be unreliable or manipulated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: