A LightGBM-based landslide susceptibility model considering the uncertainty of non-landslide samples

References

• Bentéjac C, Csörgő A, Martínez-Muñoz G. 2021. A comparative analysis of gradient boosting algorithms. Artif Intell Rev. 54(3):1937–1967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenning A. 2012. Spatial cross-validation and bootstrap for the assessment of prediction rules in remote sensing: the R package sperrorest. 2012 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, p. 5372–75.
   Google Scholar
• Carrara A, Fausto G., editors. 1995. Geographical information systems in assessing natural hazards. Advances in natural and technological hazards research. Vol. 5. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Chang Z, Huang J, Huang F, Bhuyan K, Meena SR, Catani F. 2023. Uncertainty analysis of non-landslide sample selection in landslide susceptibility prediction using slope unit-based machine learning models. Gondwana Res. 117:307–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen W, Pourghasemi HR, Kornejady A, Zhang N. 2017. Landslide spatial modeling: introducing new ensembles of ANN, MaxEnt, and SVM machine learning techniques. Geoderma. 305:314–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clerici A, Perego S, Tellini C, Vescovi P. 2002. A procedure for landslide susceptibility Zonation by the conditional analysis method. Geomorphology. 48(4):349–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ElShawi R, Sherif Y, Al-Mallah M, Sakr S. 2021. Interpretability in healthcare: a comparative study of local machine learning interpretability techniques. Comput Intell. 37(4):1633–1650.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong H, Ilia I, Tsangaratos P, Chen W, Xu C. 2017. A hybrid fuzzy weight of evidence method in landslide susceptibility analysis on the Wuyuan Area, China. Geomorphology. 290:1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong H, Miao Y, Liu J, Zhu A-X. 2019. Exploring the effects of the design and quantity of absence data on the performance of random forest-based landslide susceptibility mapping. Catena. 176:45–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong H, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghi ZS. 2016. Landslide susceptibility assessment in lianhua county (China): a comparison between a random forest data mining technique and bivariate and multivariate statistical models. Geomorphology. 259:105–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huan Y, Song L, Khan U, Zhang B. 2023. Stacking ensemble of machine learning methods for landslide susceptibility mapping in Zhangjiajie City, Hunan Province, China. Environ Earth Sci. 82(1):1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang F, Cao Z, Jiang S-H, Zhou C, Huang J, Guo Z. 2020. Landslide susceptibility prediction based on a semi-supervised multiple-layer perceptron model. Landslides. 17(12):2919–2930.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia WJ, Wang MF, Zhou CH, Yang QH. 2021. Analysis of the spatial association of geographical detector-based landslides and environmental factors in the Southeastern Tibetan Plateau, China. PLoS One. 16(5):e0251776.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalantar B, Pradhan B, Amir Naghibi S, Motevalli A, Mansor S. 2018. Assessment of the effects of training data selection on the landslide susceptibility mapping: a comparison between support vector machine (SVM), Logistic Regression (LR) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN). Geomat Nat Hazard Risk. 9(1):49–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavzoglu T, Teke A. 2022. Predictive performances of ensemble machine learning algorithms in landslide susceptibility mapping using random forest, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and natural gradient boosting (NGBoost). Arab J Sci Eng. 47(6):7367–7385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klüver J. 2011. A mathematical theory of communication: meaning, information, and topology. Complexity. 16(3):10–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kock N, Lynn G. 2012. Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an illustration and recommendations. JAIS. 13(7):546–580.
   Google Scholar
• Li L, Lan H, Guo C, Zhang Y, Li Q, Wu Y. 2017. A modified frequency ratio method for landslide susceptibility assessment. Landslides. 14(2):727–741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao M, Wen H, Yang L. 2022. Identifying the essential conditioning factors of landslide susceptibility models under different grid resolutions using hybrid machine learning: a case of Wushan and Wuxi Counties, China. Catena. 217:106428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin K, Gao Y. 2022. Model interpretability of financial fraud detection by group SHAP. Exp Syst Appl. 210:118354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin Q, Wang Y. 2018. Spatial and temporal analysis of a fatal landslide inventory in China from 1950 to 2016. Landslides. 15(12):2357–2372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Meng Z, Zhu L, Hu D, He H. 2023. Optimizing the sample selection of machine learning models for landslide susceptibility prediction using information value models in the Dabie mountain area of Anhui, China. Sustainability. 15(3):1971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombardo L, Mai PM. 2018. Presenting logistic regression-based landslide susceptibility results. Eng Geol. 244:14–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo W, Liu CC. 2018. Innovative landslide susceptibility mapping supported by geomorphon and geographical detector methods. Landslides. 15(3):465–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma L, Chen J, Zhou Y, Chen X. 2016. Two-step constrained nonlinear spectral mixture analysis method for mitigating the collinearity effect. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 54(5):2873–2886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma M, Zhao G, He B, Li Q, Dong H, Wang S, Wang Z. 2021. XGBoost-based method for flash flood risk assessment. J Hydrol. 598:126382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marton S, Lüdtke S, Bartelt C. 2022. Explanations for neural networks by neural networks. Appl Sci. 12(3):980.
   Google Scholar
• Myronidis D, Papageorgiou C, Theophanous S. 2016. Landslide susceptibility mapping based on landslide history and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Nat Hazards. 81(1):245–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natekin A, Knoll A. 2013. Gradient boosting machines, a tutorial. Front Neurorobot. 7:21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paryani S, Neshat A, Javadi S, Pradhan B. 2020. GIS-based comparison of the GA-LR ensemble method and statistical models at sefiedrood basin, Iran. Arab J Geosci. 13(19):1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichenbach P, Rossi M, Malamud BD, Mihir M, Guzzetti F. 2018. A review of statistically-based landslide susceptibility models. Earth-Sci Rev. 180:60–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagi O, Rokach L. 2021. Approximating XGBoost with an interpretable decision tree. Inform Sci. 572:522–542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selvaraju RR, Cogswell M, Das A, Vedantam R, Parikh D, Batra D. 2020. Grad-CAM: visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. Int J Comput Vis. 128(2):336–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shao X, Ma S, Xu C, Zhou Q. 2020. Effects of sampling intensity and non-slide/slide sample ratio on the occurrence probability of coseismic landslides. Geomorphology. 363:107222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stengelin R, Grueneisen S, Tomasello M. 2018. Why should I trust you? Investigating young children’s spontaneous mistrust in potential deceivers. Cogn Dev. 48:146–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun D, Ding Y, Zhang J, Wen H, Wang Y, Xu J, Zhou X, Liu R. 2022. Essential insights into decision mechanism of landslide susceptibility mapping based on different machine learning models. Geocarto Int. 38:1–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun D, Shi S, Wen H, Xu J, Zhou X, Wu J. 2021. A hybrid optimization method of factor screening predicated on geodetector and random forest for landslide susceptibility mapping. Geomorphology. 379:107623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun X, Liu M, Sima Z. 2020. A novel cryptocurrency price trend forecasting model based on lightGBM. Fin Res Lett. 32:101084.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Taheri S, Mammadov M. 2013. Learning the naive bayes classifier with optimization models. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci. 23(4):787–795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Wang T. 2020. Application of improved lightGBM model in blood glucose prediction. Appl Sci. 10(9):3227.
   Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Sun D, Wen H, Zhang H, Zhang F. 2020. Comparison of random forest model and frequency ratio model for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping (LSM) in Yunyang County (Chongqing, China). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 17(12):4206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Wen H, Sun D, Li Y. 2021. Quantitative assessment of landslide risk based on susceptibility mapping using random forest and geodetector. Remote Sens. 13(13):2625.
   Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Feng L, Li S, Ren F, Du Q. 2020. A hybrid model considering spatial heterogeneity for landslide susceptibility mapping in Zhejiang Province, China. Catena. 188:104425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Z, Brenning A. 2021. Active-learning approaches for landslide mapping using support vector machines. Remote Sens. 13(13):2588.
   Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Ke Y, Chen Z, Liang S, Zhao H, Hong H. 2020. Application of alternating decision tree with AdaBoost and bagging ensembles for landslide susceptibility mapping. Catena. 187:104396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao C, Tian Y, Shi W, Guo Q, Wu L. 2010. A new method of pseudo absence data generation in landslide susceptibility mapping with a case study of Shenzhen. Sci China Technol Sci. 53(S1):75–84.
   Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Yuan Y, Han Z, Liu G. 2022. Interpretability analysis for thermal sensation machine learning models: an exploration based on the SHAP approach. Indoor Air. 32(2):e12984.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zêzere JL, Pereira S, Melo R, Oliveira SC, Garcia RAC. 2017. Mapping landslide susceptibility using data-driven methods. Sci Total Environ. 589:250–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J,Ma X,Zhang J,Sun D,Zhou X,Mi C,Wen H. 2023. Insights into geospatial heterogeneity of landslide susceptibility based on the SHAP-XGBoost model. J Environ Manage. 332:117357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang D, Gong Y. 2020. The comparison of lightGBM and XGBoost coupling factor analysis and prediagnosis of acute liver failure. IEEE Access. 8:220990–221003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang H, Yin C, Wang S, Guo B. 2022. Landslide susceptibility mapping based on landslide classification and improved convolutional neural networks. Nat Hazards. 116:1–41.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Yan Q. 2022. Landslide susceptibility prediction based on high-trust non-landslide point selection. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf. 11(7):398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou X, Wen H, Li Z, Zhang H, Zhang W. 2022. An interpretable model for the susceptibility of rainfall-induced shallow landslides based on SHAP and XGBoost. Geocarto Int. 37(26):13419–13450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou X, Wen H, Zhang Y, Xu J, Zhang W. 2021. Landslide susceptibility mapping using hybrid random forest with GeoDetector and RFE for factor optimization. Geosci Front. 12(5):101211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu AX, Miao Y, Liu J, Bai S, Zeng C, Ma T, Hong H. 2019. A similarity-based approach to sampling absence data for landslide susceptibility mapping using data-driven methods. Catena. 183:104188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar