{"title":"Estimation of soil liquefaction using artificial intelligence techniques: an extended comparison between machine and deep learning approaches","authors":"Eyyüp Hakan Şehmusoğlu, Talas Fikret Kurnaz, Caner Erden","doi":"10.1007/s12665-025-12116-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study investigates the effectiveness of various deep learning (DL) algorithms in predicting soil liquefaction susceptibility. We explore a spectrum of algorithms, including machine learning models such as Support Vector Machines (SVMs), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and Logistic Regression (LR), alongside DL architectures like Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTMs), Bidirectional LSTMs (BiLSTMs), and Gated Recurrent Units (GRUs). The performance of these algorithms is assessed using comprehensive metrics, including accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and area under the curve (AUC). Cross-entropy loss is employed as the loss function during model training to optimize the differentiation between liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil samples. Our findings reveal that the GRU model achieved the highest overall accuracy of 0.98, followed by the BiLSTM model with an accuracy of 0.95. Notably, the BiLSTM model excelled in precision for class 1, attaining a score of 0.96 on the test dataset. These results underscore the potential of both GRU and BiLSTM models in predicting soil liquefaction susceptibility, with the BiLSTM model’s simpler architecture proving particularly effective in certain metrics and datasets. The findings of this study could assist practitioners in seismic risk assessment by providing more accurate and reliable tools for evaluating soil liquefaction potential, thereby enhancing mitigation strategies and informing decision-making in earthquake-prone areas. This study contributes to developing robust tools for liquefaction hazard assessment, ultimately supporting improved seismic risk mitigation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":542,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Earth Sciences","volume":"84 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12665-025-12116-4.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Earth Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-025-12116-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study investigates the effectiveness of various deep learning (DL) algorithms in predicting soil liquefaction susceptibility. We explore a spectrum of algorithms, including machine learning models such as Support Vector Machines (SVMs), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and Logistic Regression (LR), alongside DL architectures like Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTMs), Bidirectional LSTMs (BiLSTMs), and Gated Recurrent Units (GRUs). The performance of these algorithms is assessed using comprehensive metrics, including accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and area under the curve (AUC). Cross-entropy loss is employed as the loss function during model training to optimize the differentiation between liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil samples. Our findings reveal that the GRU model achieved the highest overall accuracy of 0.98, followed by the BiLSTM model with an accuracy of 0.95. Notably, the BiLSTM model excelled in precision for class 1, attaining a score of 0.96 on the test dataset. These results underscore the potential of both GRU and BiLSTM models in predicting soil liquefaction susceptibility, with the BiLSTM model’s simpler architecture proving particularly effective in certain metrics and datasets. The findings of this study could assist practitioners in seismic risk assessment by providing more accurate and reliable tools for evaluating soil liquefaction potential, thereby enhancing mitigation strategies and informing decision-making in earthquake-prone areas. This study contributes to developing robust tools for liquefaction hazard assessment, ultimately supporting improved seismic risk mitigation.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Earth Sciences is an international multidisciplinary journal concerned with all aspects of interaction between humans, natural resources, ecosystems, special climates or unique geographic zones, and the earth:
Water and soil contamination caused by waste management and disposal practices
Environmental problems associated with transportation by land, air, or water
Geological processes that may impact biosystems or humans
Man-made or naturally occurring geological or hydrological hazards
Environmental problems associated with the recovery of materials from the earth
Environmental problems caused by extraction of minerals, coal, and ores, as well as oil and gas, water and alternative energy sources
Environmental impacts of exploration and recultivation – Environmental impacts of hazardous materials
Management of environmental data and information in data banks and information systems
Dissemination of knowledge on techniques, methods, approaches and experiences to improve and remediate the environment
In pursuit of these topics, the geoscientific disciplines are invited to contribute their knowledge and experience. Major disciplines include: hydrogeology, hydrochemistry, geochemistry, geophysics, engineering geology, remediation science, natural resources management, environmental climatology and biota, environmental geography, soil science and geomicrobiology.