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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A review of statistically-based landslide susceptibility models
Reichenbach, P., Rossi, M., Malamud, B. D., Mihir, M., & Guzzetti, F. (2018) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.03.001 · Cited by 2,347
Selecting and interpreting measures of thematic classification accuracy
Stehman, S. V. (1997) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/s0034-4257(97)00083-7 · Cited by 1,729
Youssef, A. M., Pourghasemi, H. R., Pourtaghi, Z. S., & Al-Katheeri, M. M. (2016) · Landslides · doi:10.1007/s10346-015-0614-1 · Cited by 770
Dou, J., Yunus, A. P., Tien Bui, D., Merghadi, A., Sahana, M., Zhu, Z., Chen, C.-W., Khosravi, K., Yang, Y., & Pham, B. T. (2019) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.221 · Cited by 615
Hong, H., Liu, J., Bui, D. T., Pradhan, B., Acharya, T. D., Pham, B. T., Zhu, A.-X., Chen, W., & Ahmad, B. B. (2018) · CATENA · doi:10.1016/j.catena.2018.01.005 · Cited by 491
Chen, W., Peng, J., Hong, H., Shahabi, H., Pradhan, B., Liu, J., Zhu, A.-X., Pei, X., & Duan, Z. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.124 · Cited by 478
Huang, F., Zhang, J., Zhou, C., Wang, Y., Huang, J., & Zhu, L. (2020) · Landslides · doi:10.1007/s10346-019-01274-9 · Cited by 444
Self-citationHong, H., Pourghasemi, H. R., & Pourtaghi, Z. S. (2016) · Geomorphology · doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.02.012 · Cited by 440
Hong, H., Panahi, M., Shirzadi, A., Ma, T., Liu, J., Zhu, A.-X., Chen, W., Kougias, I., & Kazakis, N. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.114 · Cited by 432
Cited by
Taheri, A., & Sobanjo, J. (2024) · Infrastructures · doi:10.3390/infrastructures9060090 · Cited by 17
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.