A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Landslide spatial probability prediction: a comparative assessment of naïve Bayes, ensemble learning, and deep learning approaches
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9313-976X
Abstract The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the performances of 5 machine learning (ML) techniques for predicting the spatial probability of landslide at Atsuma, Japan, and Mt. Umyeon, Korea. 5 ML models used are Naïve Bayes (NB), ensemble learning (random forest (RF) and adaboost (AB)), and deep learning (multilayer perceptron (MLP) and convolutional neural network (CNN)) models. Real landslide events at the study areas are randomly separated to the training set for landslide mapping and the validation set for assessing performance. To assess the performance of the used models, the resulting models are validated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The success rate curves show that the areas under the curve (AUC) for the NB, RF, AB, MLP, and CNN are 85.1, 88.8, 88.6, 87.5, and 95.0%, respectively, at Atsuma and 68.7, 85.6, 90.5, 81.6, and 92.0%, respectively, at Mt. Umyeon. Similarly, the validation results show that the areas under the curve for the NB, RF, AB, MLP, and CNN are 84.3, 87.1, 87.1, 86.7, and 89.7%, respectively, at Atsuma and 64.9, 85.5, 83.9, 84.7, and 90.5%, respectively, at Mt. Umyeon. In addition, statistical tests such as Chi-square test and difference of proportions test show that all classified landslide susceptibility maps have statistical significance and the significant difference in classified landslide susceptibility maps from different ML models. The comparison results among 5 ML models show that the CNN model had the best performance and NB model had the worst performance in both study areas.
Landslide spatial probability prediction: a comparative assessment of naïve Bayes, ensemble learning, and deep learning approaches
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9313-976X
Abstract The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the performances of 5 machine learning (ML) techniques for predicting the spatial probability of landslide at Atsuma, Japan, and Mt. Umyeon, Korea. 5 ML models used are Naïve Bayes (NB), ensemble learning (random forest (RF) and adaboost (AB)), and deep learning (multilayer perceptron (MLP) and convolutional neural network (CNN)) models. Real landslide events at the study areas are randomly separated to the training set for landslide mapping and the validation set for assessing performance. To assess the performance of the used models, the resulting models are validated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The success rate curves show that the areas under the curve (AUC) for the NB, RF, AB, MLP, and CNN are 85.1, 88.8, 88.6, 87.5, and 95.0%, respectively, at Atsuma and 68.7, 85.6, 90.5, 81.6, and 92.0%, respectively, at Mt. Umyeon. Similarly, the validation results show that the areas under the curve for the NB, RF, AB, MLP, and CNN are 84.3, 87.1, 87.1, 86.7, and 89.7%, respectively, at Atsuma and 64.9, 85.5, 83.9, 84.7, and 90.5%, respectively, at Mt. Umyeon. In addition, statistical tests such as Chi-square test and difference of proportions test show that all classified landslide susceptibility maps have statistical significance and the significant difference in classified landslide susceptibility maps from different ML models. The comparison results among 5 ML models show that the CNN model had the best performance and NB model had the worst performance in both study areas.
Landslide spatial probability prediction: a comparative assessment of naïve Bayes, ensemble learning, and deep learning approaches
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9313-976X
Abstract The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the performances of 5 machine learning (ML) techniques for predicting the spatial probability of landslide at Atsuma, Japan, and Mt. Umyeon, Korea. 5 ML models used are Naïve Bayes (NB), ensemble learning (random forest (RF) and adaboost (AB)), and deep learning (multilayer perceptron (MLP) and convolutional neural network (CNN)) models. Real landslide events at the study areas are randomly separated to the training set for landslide mapping and the validation set for assessing performance. To assess the performance of the used models, the resulting models are validated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The success rate curves show that the areas under the curve (AUC) for the NB, RF, AB, MLP, and CNN are 85.1, 88.8, 88.6, 87.5, and 95.0%, respectively, at Atsuma and 68.7, 85.6, 90.5, 81.6, and 92.0%, respectively, at Mt. Umyeon. Similarly, the validation results show that the areas under the curve for the NB, RF, AB, MLP, and CNN are 84.3, 87.1, 87.1, 86.7, and 89.7%, respectively, at Atsuma and 64.9, 85.5, 83.9, 84.7, and 90.5%, respectively, at Mt. Umyeon. In addition, statistical tests such as Chi-square test and difference of proportions test show that all classified landslide susceptibility maps have statistical significance and the significant difference in classified landslide susceptibility maps from different ML models. The comparison results among 5 ML models show that the CNN model had the best performance and NB model had the worst performance in both study areas.
Landslide spatial probability prediction: a comparative assessment of naïve Bayes, ensemble learning, and deep learning approaches
Nguyen, Ba-Quang-Vinh (author) / Kim, Yun-Tae (author)
2021
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
BKL:
56.00$jBauwesen: Allgemeines
/
38.58
Geomechanik
/
38.58$jGeomechanik
/
56.20
Ingenieurgeologie, Bodenmechanik
/
56.00
Bauwesen: Allgemeines
/
56.20$jIngenieurgeologie$jBodenmechanik
RVK:
ELIB18
Ensemble Disagreement Active Learning for Spatial Prediction of Shallow Landslide
| Springer Verlag | 2017
A novel hybrid model of Bagging-based Naïve Bayes Trees for landslide susceptibility assessment
| Online Contents | 2017
A novel hybrid model of Bagging-based Naïve Bayes Trees for landslide susceptibility assessment
| Online Contents | 2017