Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 282

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Landslide Susceptibility Prediction Based on Remote Sensing Images and GIS: Comparisons of Supervised and Unsupervised Machine Learning Models

Open access
Chang, Zhilu, Du, Zhen, Zhang, Fan, Huang, Faming, Chen, Jiawu, Li, Wenbin, Guo, Zizheng·2020·Remote Sensing

Abstract

Landslide susceptibility prediction (LSP) has been widely and effectively implemented by machine learning (ML) models based on remote sensing (RS) images and Geographic Information System (GIS). However, comparisons of the applications of ML models for LSP from the perspectives of supervised machine learning (SML) and unsupervised machine learning (USML) have not been explored. Hence, this study aims to compare the LSP performance of these SML and USML models, thus further to explore the advantages and disadvantages of these ML models and to realize a more accurate and reliable LSP result. Two representative SML models (support vector machine (SVM) and CHi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID)) and two representative USML models (K-means and Kohonen models) are respectively used to scientifically predict the landslide susceptibility indexes, and then these prediction results are discussed. Ningdu County with 446 recorded landslides obtained through field investigations is introduced as case study. A total of 12 conditioning factors are obtained through procession of Landsat TM 8 images and high-resolution aerial images, topographical and hydrological spatial analysis of Digital Elevation Modeling in GIS software, and government reports. The area value under the curve of receiver operating features (AUC) is applied for evaluating the prediction accuracy of SML models, and the frequency ratio (FR) accuracy is then introduced to compare the remarkable prediction performance differences between SML and USML models. Overall, the receiver operation curve (ROC) results show that the AUC of the SVM is 0.892 and is slightly greater than the AUC of the CHAID model (0.872). The FR accuracy results show that the SVM model has the highest accuracy for LSP (77.80%), followed by the CHAID model (74.50%), the Kohonen model (72.8%) and the K-means model (69.7%), which indicates that the SML models can reach considerably better prediction capability than the USML models. It can be concluded that selecting recorded landslides as prior knowledge to train and test the LSP models is the key reason for the higher prediction accuracy of the SML models, while the lack of a priori knowledge and target guidance is an important reason for the low LSP accuracy of the USML models. Nevertheless, the USML models can also be used to implement LSP due to their advantages of efficient modeling processes, dimensionality reduction and strong scalability.

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 · 10.3390/rs12030502

Cites

37 of 37 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 37 references

Metadata

Authors
Chang, Z., Du, Z., Zhang, F., Huang, F., Chen, J., Li, W., & Guo, Z.
Venue
Remote Sensing
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-02-04
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
502
ISSN
2072-4292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3004932743
Cited by
282
References
37
FWCI
49.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Landslide Susceptibility Prediction Based on Remote Sensing Images and GIS: Comparisons of Supervised and Unsupervised Machine Learning Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/rs12030502
The paper
Chang, Z., Du, Z., Zhang, F., Huang, F., Chen, J., Li, W., & Guo, Z. (2020). Landslide Susceptibility Prediction Based on Remote Sensing Images and GIS: Comparisons of Supervised and Unsupervised Machine Learning Models. Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12030502

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.