Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 467

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing the prediction performance of a Deep Learning Neural Network model with conventional machine learning models in landslide susceptibility assessment

Bui, Dieu Tien, Tsangaratos, Paraskevas, Nguyen, Viet-Tien, Liem, Ngo Van, Trinh, Phan Trong·2020·CATENA

Abstract

Abstract The main objective of the current study was to introduce a Deep Learning Neural Network (DLNN) model in landslide susceptibility assessments and compare its predictive performance with state-of-the-art machine learning models. The efficiency of the DLNN model was estimated for the Kon Tum Province, Viet Nam, an area characterized by the presence of landslide phenomena. Nine landslide related variables, elevation, slope angle, aspect, land use, normalized difference vegetation index, soil type, distance to faults, distance to geology boundaries, lithology cover, and 1,657 landslide locations, were used so as to produce the training and validation datasets during the landslide susceptibility assessment. The Frequency Ratio method was used so as to estimate the existing relation between the landslide-related variables and the presence of landslides, assigning to each variable class a weight value. Based on the results concerning the predictive ability of the landslide related variables which was evaluated using the Information ration method, all variables were further processed since they appear as highly predictive. The learning ability of the DLNN model has been evaluated and compared with a Multi Layer Preceptron Neural Network, a Support Vector Machine, a C4.5-Decision Tree model and a Random Forest model using the training dataset, whereas the predictive performance of each model has been evaluated and compared using the validation datasets. In order to evaluate their learning and predictive capacity of each model the classification accuracy, the sensitivity, the specificity and the area under the success and predictive rate curves (AUC) were calculated. Results showed that the proposed DLNN model had a higher performance than the four benchmark models. Although DLNN has been used seldom in landslide susceptibility assessments, the study highlights that the usage of deep learning approach could be considered as a satisfactory alternative approach for landslide susceptibility mapping.

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.2019.104426

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 467

Metadata

Authors
Bui, D. T., Tsangaratos, P., Nguyen, V.-T., Liem, N. V., & Trinh, P. T.
Venue
CATENA
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-05
Volume
188
Pages
104426
ISSN
0341-8162 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2999729702
Cited by
467
References
5
FWCI
77.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Comparing the prediction performance of a Deep Learning Neural Network model with conventional machine learning models in landslide susceptibility assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104426
The paper
Bui, D. T., Tsangaratos, P., Nguyen, V.-T., Liem, N. V., & Trinh, P. T. (2020). Comparing the prediction performance of a Deep Learning Neural Network model with conventional machine learning models in landslide susceptibility assessment. CATENA. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104426

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.