mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Interpretability of Statistical, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning Models for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping in Three Gorges Reservoir Area

arXiv 2405.11762 ↗First posted 20 May 2024cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) is crucial for identifying high-risk areas and informing prevention strategies. This study investigates the interpretability of statistical, machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) models in predicting landslide susceptibility. This is achieved by incorporating various relevant interpretation methods and two types of input factors: a comprehensive set of 19 contributing factors that are statistically relevant to landslides, as well as a dedicated set of 9 triggering factors directly associated with triggering landslides. Given that model performance is a crucial metric in LSM, our investigations into interpretability naturally involve assessing and comparing LSM accuracy across different models considered. In our investigation, the convolutional neural network model achieved the highest accuracy (0.8447 with 19 factors; 0.8048 with 9 factors), while Extreme Gradient Boosting and Support Vector Machine also demonstrated strong predictive capabilities, outperforming conventional statistical models. These findings indicate that DL and sophisticated ML algorithms can effectively capture the complex relationships between input factors and landslide occurrence. However, the interpretability of predictions varied among different models, particularly when using the broader set of 19 contributing factors. Explanation methods like SHAP, LIME, and DeepLIFT also led to variations in interpretation results. Using a comprehensive set of 19 contributing factors improved prediction accuracy but introduced complexities and inconsistency in model interpretations. Focusing on a dedicated set of 9 triggering factors sacrificed some predictive power but enhanced interpretability, as evidenced by more consistent key factors identified across various models and alignment with the findings of field investigation reports....

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2024.

Builds on

3 of 27 references.

References · 3

  1. 2021Interpretable Deep Learning: Interpretation, Interpretability, Trustworthiness, and Beyondcited by 118
  2. 2022Explainable AI Integrated Feature Selection for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping using TreeSHAPcited by 3
  3. 2023Dynamic landslide susceptibility mapping over recent three decades to uncover variations in landslide causes in subtropical urban mountainous areascited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.