Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 20Seismology and Earthquake StudiesLandslides and related hazardsGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Enhancing Debris Flow Warning via Machine Learning Feature Reduction and Model Selection

Open access
Zhou, Qi, Tang, Hui, Hibert, Clément, Chmiel, Małgorzata, Walter, Fabian, Dietze, Michael, Turowski, Jens M.·2025·Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The advent of machine learning has significantly improved the accuracy of identifying mass movements through the seismic waves they generate, making it possible to implement real‐time early warning systems for debris flows. However, we lack a profound understanding of the effective seismic features and the limitations of different machine learning models. In this work, we investigate eighty seismic features and three machine learning models for single‐station‐based binary debris flow classification and multi‐station‐based warning tasks. These seismic features, derived from physical and statistical knowledge of impact sources, are grouped into five sets: Benford's law, waveform, spectra, spectrogram, and network. The machine learning models belong to two families: two ensemble models, Random Forest and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost); one recurrent neural network model, Long Short‐Term Memory (LSTM). We analyzed feature importance from the ensemble models and found that the number and even the types of seismic features are not critical for training an effective binary classifier for debris flow. When using models designed to capture patterns in sequential data rather than focusing on information only in one given window, using the LSTM does not significantly improve the performance of binary debris flow classification task over Random Forest and XGBoost. For the multi‐station‐based debris flow warning task, the LSTM model predicts debris flow probability more consistently and provides longer warning times. Our proposed framework simplifies machine learning‐driven debris flow classification and lays the foundation for affordable seismic signal‐driven early warning using a sparse seismic network.

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 · 10.1029/2024jf008094

Cites

86 of 86 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

1 retracted

Show all 86 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Aki K., 2002, Quantitative seismology
  2. Cutler A., 2012, Random forests, 157
  3. Petley D., 2023, The devastating 17 July 2023 debris flow at Quetame in Colombia, American Geophysical Union Blogosphere
  4. Petley D., 2024, The possible causes of the deadly 21 June 2024 SORTE debris flow in Switzerland, Eos American Geophysical Union

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, Q., Tang, H., Hibert, C., Chmiel, M., Walter, F., Dietze, M., & Turowski, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Potsdam (DE)
  • GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences (DE)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (CH)
Corresponding author
Zhou, Qi
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface
Published
2025-04
Volume
130
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 2169-9003 (ISSN-L)
  • 2169-9011
OpenAlex
W4409831609
Cited by
20
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 7
FWCI
7.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Geophysical Research Earth Surface (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DORA WSL (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Publication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection (SKLGP2023K003)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (42120104002)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Seismology and Earthquake Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Landslides and related hazards
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Geotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Keywords
debris flow early warning, seismic signals, machine learning model selection, Benford's law, seismic spectra, spectrogram, sparse seismic networks, feature importance, random forest, XGBoost, LSTM

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

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.