Global landslide susceptibility prediction based on the automated machine learning (AutoML) framework

References

• Achour Y, Boumezbeur A, Hadji R, Chouabbi A, Cavaleiro V, Bendaoud EA. 2017. Landslide susceptibility mapping using analytic hierarchy process and information value methods along a highway road section in Constantine, Algeria. Arab J Geosci. 10(8):1–16. doi: 10.1007/s12517-017-2980-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Achu AL, Aju CD, Pham QB, Reghunath R, Anh DT. 2022. Landslide susceptibility modelling using hybrid bivariate statistical-based machine-learning method in a highland segment of Southern Western Ghats, India. Environ Earth Sci. 81(13):360. doi: 10.1007/s12665-022-10464-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Achu AL, Joseph S, Aju CD, Mathai J. 2021. Preliminary analysis of a catastrophic landslide event on 6 August 2020 at Pettimudi, Kerala State, India. Landslides. 18(4):1459–1463. doi: 10.1007/s10346-020-01598-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Achu AL, Thomas J, Aju CD, Remani PK, Gopinath G. 2023. Performance evaluation of machine learning and statistical techniques for modelling landslide susceptibility with limited field data. Earth Sci Inform. 16(1):1025–1039. doi: 10.1007/s12145-022-00910-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aditian A, Kubota T, Shinohara Y. 2018. Comparison of GIS-based landslide susceptibility models using frequency ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network in a tertiary region of Ambon, Indonesia. Geomorphology. 318:101–111. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2018.06.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akbar TA, Ha SR. 2011. Landslide hazard zoning along Himalayan Kaghan Valley of Pakistan—by integration of GPS, GIS, and remote sensing technology. Landslides. 8(4):527–540. doi: 10.1007/s10346-011-0260-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arino O. 2010. GlobCover 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Calvello M, Pecoraro G. 2018. FraneItalia: a catalog of recent Italian landslides. Geoenviron Disasters. 5(1):1–16. doi: 10.1186/s40677-018-0105-5.
   Google Scholar
• Chen J, Chen K, Chen X, Qiu X, Huang X. 2018. Exploring shared structures and hierarchies for multiple NLP tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07658.
   Google Scholar
• Chen W, Shirzadi A, Shahabi H, Ahmad BB, Zhang S, Hong H, Zhang N. 2017. A novel hybrid artificial intelligence approach based on the rotation forest ensemble and naïve Bayes tree classifiers for a landslide susceptibility assessment in Langao County, China. Geomatic Nat Hazard Risk. 8(2):1955–1977. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2017.1401560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colkesen I, Kavzoglu T. 2016. Performance evaluation of rotation forest for SVM-based recursive feature elimination using hyperspectral imagery. 2016 8th Workshop on Hyperspectral Image and Signal Processing: Evolution in Remote Sensing (WHISPERS), IEEE. p. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/WHISPERS.2016.8071792.
   Google Scholar
• Dou J, Yunus AP, Bui DT, Merghadi A, Sahana M, Zhu Z, Chen C-W, Khosravi K, Yang Y, Pham BT. 2019. Assessment of advanced random forest and decision tree algorithms for modeling rainfall-induced landslide susceptibility in the Izu-Oshima Volcanic Island, Japan. Sci Total Environ. 662:332–346. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott A, Harty K. 2010. Landslide maps of Utah, Ogden 30 ‘X 60’ quadrangle: Utah Geological Survey Map 246DM, 14. p. 46 plates, scale 1: 100,000.
   Google Scholar
• Erener A, Mutlu A, Düzgün HS. 2016. A comparative study for Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), logistic regression (LR) and association rule mining (ARM). Eng Geol. 203:45–55. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.09.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabbri AG, Chung C-JF, Cendrero A, Remondo J. 2003. Is prediction of future landslides possible with a GIS? Natural Hazards. 30(3):487–503. doi: 10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000007282.62071.75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faes L, Wagner SK, Fu DJ, Liu X, Korot E, Ledsam JR, Back T, Chopra R, Pontikos N, Kern C, et al. 2019. Automated deep learning design for medical image classification by health-care professionals with no coding experience: a feasibility study. Lancet Digit Health. 1(5):e232–e242. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30108-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Felsberg A, Heyvaert Z, Poesen J, Stanley T, De Lannoy GJ. 2023. Probabilistic Hydrological Estimation of LandSlides (PHELS): global ensemble landslide hazard modelling. EGUsphere. p. 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Felsberg A, Poesen J, Bechtold M, Vanmaercke M, De Lannoy GJ. 2021. Estimating global landslide susceptibility and its uncertainty through ensemble modelling. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss. 22(9):1–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feurer M,Hutter F. 2019. Automated Machine Learning. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. p. 3–33. Hyperparameter Optimization.
   Google Scholar
• Fick SE, Hijmans RJ. 2017. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol. 37(12):4302–4315. doi: 10.1002/joc.5086.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froude MJ, Petley DN. 2018. Global fatal landslide occurrence from 2004 to 2016. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 18(8):2161–2181. doi: 10.5194/nhess-18-2161-2018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghiasi G, Lin T-Y, Le QV. 2019. NAS-FPN: Learning Scalable Feature Pyramid Architecture for Object Detection. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. p. 7036–7045.
   Google Scholar
• Harris I, Jones PD, Osborn TJ, Lister DH. 2014. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations – the CRU TS3.10 Dataset. Int J Climatol. 34(3):623–642. doi: 10.1002/joc.3711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann J, Moosdorf N. 2012. The new global lithological map database GLiM: a representation of rock properties at the Earth surface. Geochem Geophys Geosyst. 13(12):1–37. doi: 10.1029/2012GC004370.
   Google Scholar
• He X, Wang S, Shi S, Chu X, Tang J, Liu X, Yan C, Zhang J, Ding G. 2020. Benchmarking deep learning models and automated model design for COVID-19 detection with chest CT scans. MedRxiv.
   Google Scholar
• Hong Y, Adler R, Huffman G. 2007. Use of satellite remote sensing data in the mapping of global landslide susceptibility. Nat Hazards. 43(2):245–256. doi: 10.1007/s11069-006-9104-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarvis J, Reuter H, Nelson A, Guevara E. 2008. Hole-filled SRTM for the Globe, CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m Database, Version 4. CGIAR Consort for Spatial Inf.
   Google Scholar
• Juang CS, Stanley TA, Kirschbaum DB. 2019. Using citizen science to expand the global map of landslides: introducing the Cooperative Open Online Landslide Repository (COOLR). PLoS One. 14(7):e0218657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavzoglu T, Sahin EK, Colkesen I. 2014. Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis, support vector machines, and logistic regression. Landslides. 11(3):425–439. doi: 10.1007/s10346-013-0391-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan S, Kirschbaum DB, Stanley TA, Amatya PM, Emberson RA. 2022. Global landslide forecasting system for hazard assessment and situational awareness. Front Earth Sci. 10:878996. doi: 10.3389/feart.2022.878996.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li C, Yuan X, Lin C, Guo M, Wu W, Yan J, Ouyang W. 2019. AM-LFS: automl for loss function search. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. p. 8410–8419.
   Google Scholar
• Lin L, Lin Q, Wang Y. 2017. Landslide susceptibility mapping on a global scale using the method of logistic regression. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 17(8):1411–1424. doi: 10.5194/nhess-17-1411-2017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu C, Chen L-C, Schroff F, Adam H, Hua W, Yuille AL, Fei-Fei L. 2019. Auto-deeplab: hierarchical neural architecture search for semantic image segmentation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. p. 82–92.
   Google Scholar
• Luetzenburg G, Svennevig K, Bjørk AA, Keiding M, Kroon A. 2022. A national landslide inventory for Denmark. Earth Syst Sci Data. 14(7):3157–3165. doi: 10.5194/essd-14-3157-2022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mckeon C. 2016. National landslide susceptibility mapping project summary. Final Report. Geological Survey Ireland.
   Google Scholar
• Olson RS, Moore JH. 2016. TPOT: a tree-based pipeline optimization tool for automating machine learning. Workshop on Automatic Machine Learning. PMLR. p. 66–74.
   Google Scholar
• Osuchowski M, Atkinson R. 2008. Connecting diverse landslide inventories for improved information in Australia. Proceedings of the First World Landslide Forum, Tokyo, Japan. p. 67–70.
   Google Scholar
• Peng YH, Peng K, Zhou J, Liu ZX. 2014. Prediction of classification of rock burst risk based on genetic algorithms with SVM. AMM. 628:383–389. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.628.383.
   Google Scholar
• Pham QB, Achour Y, Ali SA, Parvin F, Vojtek M, Vojteková J, Al-Ansari N, Achu AL, Costache R, Khedher KM, et al. 2021. A comparison among fuzzy multi-criteria decision making, bivariate, multivariate and machine learning models in landslide susceptibility mapping. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 12(1):1741–1777. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2021.1944330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pradhan B,Lee S. 2010. Landslide susceptibility assessment and factor effect analysis: backpropagation artificial neural networks and their comparison with frequency ratio and bivariate logistic regression modelling. Environmental Modelling & Software. 25(6):747–759. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.10.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosser B, Dellow S, Haubrock S, Glassey P. 2017. New Zealand’s national landslide database. Landslides. 14(6):1949–1959. doi: 10.1007/s10346-017-0843-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ru B, Lyle C, Schut L, Van Der Wilk M, Gal Y. 2020. Revisiting the train loss: an efficient performance estimator for neural architecture search.
   Google Scholar
• Shahri AA, Spross J, Johansson F, Larsson S. 2019. Landslide susceptibility hazard map in southwest Sweden using artificial neural network. Catena. 183:104225. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2019.104225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slaughter S, Burns W, Mickelson K, Jacobacci K, Biel A, Contreras T. 2017. Protocol for landslide inventory mapping from lidar data in Washington State. Washington Geological Survey, USGS. p. 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Snoek J, Larochelle H, Adams RP. 2012. Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. Adv Neural Inform Process Syst. 25:2951–2959.
   Google Scholar
• Stanley T, Kirschbaum DB. 2017. A heuristic approach to global landslide susceptibility mapping. Nat Hazards (Dordr). 87(1):145–164. doi: 10.1007/s11069-017-2757-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley TA, Kirschbaum DB, Benz G, Emberson RA, Amatya PM, Medwedeff W, Clark MK. 2021. Data-driven landslide nowcasting at the global scale. Front Earth Sci. 9:640043. doi: 10.3389/feart.2021.640043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Styron R, Pagani M. 2020. The GEM global active faults database. Earthquake Spectra. 36(1_suppl):160–180. doi: 10.1177/8755293020944182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swetha TV, Gopinath G. 2020. Landslides susceptibility assessment by analytical network process: a case study for Kuttiyadi river basin (Western Ghats, southern India). SN Appl Sci. 2(11):1776. doi: 10.1007/s42452-020-03574-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taalab K, Cheng T, Zhang Y. 2018. Mapping landslide susceptibility and types using Random Forest. Big Earth Data. 2(2):159–178. doi: 10.1080/20964471.2018.1472392.
   Google Scholar
• Thornton C, Hutter F, Hoos HH, Leyton-Brown, K. 2013. Auto-WEKA: Combined selection and hyperparameter optimization of classification algorithms, Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, United States, 2013, August
   Google Scholar
• Tsangaratos P, Ilia I. 2016. Comparison of a logistic regression and Naïve Bayes classifier in landslide susceptibility assessments: the influence of models complexity and training dataset size. Catena. 145:164–179. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2016.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vennari C, Salvati P, Bianchi C, Casarano D, Parise M, Basso A, Marchesini I. 2022. AReGeoDatHa: Apulian regional GeoDatabase for geo-hydrological hazards. J Environ Manage. 322:116051. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Li W, Xing M, Wu Y, Pei Y, Yang D, Bai H. 2016. Landslide susceptibility mapping at Gongliu county, China using artificial neural network and weight of evidence models. Geosci J. 20(5):705–718. doi: 10.1007/s12303-016-0003-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weng Y, Zhou T, Li Y, Qiu X. 2019. Nas-unet: Neural architecture search for medical image segmentation. IEEE Access. 7:44247–44257. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2908991.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu H, Yao L, Zhang W, Liang X, Li Z. 2019. Auto-fpn. Automatic Network Architecture Adaptation for Object Detection beyond Classification. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. p. 6649–6658.
   Google Scholar
• Zêzere J, Pereira S, Melo R, Oliveira S, Garcia RA. 2017. Mapping landslide susceptibility using data-driven methods. Sci Total Environ. 589:250–267. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmer L, Lindauer M, Hutter F. 2021. Auto-PyTorch: multi-fidelity metalearning for efficient and robust AutoDL. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 43(9):3079–3090. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3067763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar