Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Application of alternating decision tree with AdaBoost and bagging ensembles for landslide susceptibility mapping

Open access
Wu, Yanli, Ke, Yutian, Chen, Zhuo, Liang, Shouyun, Zhao, Hongliang, Hong, Haoyuan·2020·CATENA

Abstract

Abstract Landslides are a common type of natural disaster that brings great threats to the human lives and economic development around the world, especially in the Chinese Loess Plateau. Longxian County (Shaanxi Province, China), a landslide-prone area located in the southwest part of the Loess Plateau, was selected as the study area. The main purpose of this paper is to map landslide susceptibility using Alternating decision tree (ADTree) as well as GIS-based new ensemble techniques involving ADTree with bootstrap aggregation (Bagging) and ADTree with adaptive boosting (AdaBoost). Initially, a landslide inventory map was prepared with 171 determined historical landslides events in the study area, 120 landslides (70%) were randomly selected for training dataset and the remaining 51 landslides (30%) were used for validation dataset. Subsequently, eleven landslide conditioning factors were considered in the landslide susceptibility mapping. Then, an optimization operation on selection of landslide conditioning factors was performed using correlation attribute evaluation method and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Afterwards, landslide susceptibility maps were generated with the three models. Finally, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, area under the ROC curve (AUC) and statistical measures were applied to evaluate and validate the performance of the models. The results show success rates of the ADTree model, the ADTree with Bagging (ADTree-Bagging) model and the ADTree with AdaBoost (ADTree-AdaBoost) model were 0.872, 0.917, and 0.984, respectively, while prediction rates of the three models were 0.696, 0.752 and 0.787, respectively. In sum, the two ensemble models proposed prohibited better performance than the ADTree model did, and the ADTree-AdaBoost model was selected as the best model in the study. Hence, ensemble techniques can provide new and promising methods for spatial prediction and zonation of landslide susceptibility.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.catena.2019.104396

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 62 references

Cited by

See all 396

Metadata

Authors
Wu, Y., Ke, Y., Chen, Z., Liang, S., Zhao, H., & Hong, H.
Venue
CATENA
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
187
Pages
104396
ISSN
0341-8162 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2996089053
Cited by
396
References
62
FWCI
55.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Application of alternating decision tree with AdaBoost and bagging ensembles for landslide susceptibility mapping. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104396
The paper
Wu, Y., Ke, Y., Chen, Z., Liang, S., Zhao, H., & Hong, H. (2020). Application of alternating decision tree with AdaBoost and bagging ensembles for landslide susceptibility mapping. CATENA. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104396

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.