Naïve和Semi-Naïve以尼泊尔库勒卡尼河流域为例的滑坡易感性贝叶斯分类

IF 2.4 Q2 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Florimond De Smedt, Prabin Kayastha, Megh Raj Dhital
{"title":"Naïve和Semi-Naïve以尼泊尔库勒卡尼河流域为例的滑坡易感性贝叶斯分类","authors":"Florimond De Smedt, Prabin Kayastha, Megh Raj Dhital","doi":"10.3390/geosciences13100306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Naïve Bayes classification is widely used for landslide susceptibility analysis, especially in the form of weights-of-evidence. However, when significant conditional dependence is present, the probabilities derived from weights-of-evidence are biased, resulting in an overestimation of landslide susceptibility. As a solution, this study presents a semi-naïve Bayesian method for landslide susceptibility mapping by combining logistic regression with weights-of-evidence. The utility of the method is tested by application to a case study in the Kulekhani River Basin in Central Nepal. The results show that the naïve Bayes approach with weights-of-evidence overpredicts the posterior probability of landslide occurrence by a factor of about two, while the semi-naïve Bayes approach, which uses logistic regression with weights-of-evidence, is unbiased and has more discriminatory power for landslide susceptibility mapping. In addition, the semi-naïve Bayes approach can statistically distinguish the main factors that promote landslides and allows us to estimate the model uncertainty by calculating the standard error of the predictions.","PeriodicalId":38189,"journal":{"name":"Geosciences (Switzerland)","volume":"131 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Naïve and Semi-Naïve Bayesian Classification of Landslide Susceptibility Applied to the Kulekhani River Basin in Nepal as a Test Case\",\"authors\":\"Florimond De Smedt, Prabin Kayastha, Megh Raj Dhital\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/geosciences13100306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Naïve Bayes classification is widely used for landslide susceptibility analysis, especially in the form of weights-of-evidence. However, when significant conditional dependence is present, the probabilities derived from weights-of-evidence are biased, resulting in an overestimation of landslide susceptibility. As a solution, this study presents a semi-naïve Bayesian method for landslide susceptibility mapping by combining logistic regression with weights-of-evidence. The utility of the method is tested by application to a case study in the Kulekhani River Basin in Central Nepal. The results show that the naïve Bayes approach with weights-of-evidence overpredicts the posterior probability of landslide occurrence by a factor of about two, while the semi-naïve Bayes approach, which uses logistic regression with weights-of-evidence, is unbiased and has more discriminatory power for landslide susceptibility mapping. In addition, the semi-naïve Bayes approach can statistically distinguish the main factors that promote landslides and allows us to estimate the model uncertainty by calculating the standard error of the predictions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geosciences (Switzerland)\",\"volume\":\"131 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geosciences (Switzerland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13100306\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geosciences (Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13100306","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Naïve贝叶斯分类被广泛应用于滑坡易感性分析,特别是以证据权重的形式。然而,当存在显著的条件依赖时,由证据权重得出的概率是有偏差的,导致对滑坡易感性的高估。作为解决方案,本研究提出了semi-naïve贝叶斯方法,将逻辑回归与证据权相结合,用于滑坡易感性制图。通过对尼泊尔中部库勒卡尼河流域的一个案例研究,验证了该方法的实用性。结果表明,naïve证据权贝叶斯方法对滑坡发生后验概率的预测过高约2个因子,而semi-naïve贝叶斯方法采用证据权逻辑回归,对滑坡敏感性作图具有无偏性和更强的判别能力。此外,semi-naïve贝叶斯方法可以统计区分促进滑坡的主要因素,并允许我们通过计算预测的标准误差来估计模型的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Naïve and Semi-Naïve Bayesian Classification of Landslide Susceptibility Applied to the Kulekhani River Basin in Nepal as a Test Case
Naïve Bayes classification is widely used for landslide susceptibility analysis, especially in the form of weights-of-evidence. However, when significant conditional dependence is present, the probabilities derived from weights-of-evidence are biased, resulting in an overestimation of landslide susceptibility. As a solution, this study presents a semi-naïve Bayesian method for landslide susceptibility mapping by combining logistic regression with weights-of-evidence. The utility of the method is tested by application to a case study in the Kulekhani River Basin in Central Nepal. The results show that the naïve Bayes approach with weights-of-evidence overpredicts the posterior probability of landslide occurrence by a factor of about two, while the semi-naïve Bayes approach, which uses logistic regression with weights-of-evidence, is unbiased and has more discriminatory power for landslide susceptibility mapping. In addition, the semi-naïve Bayes approach can statistically distinguish the main factors that promote landslides and allows us to estimate the model uncertainty by calculating the standard error of the predictions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Geosciences (Switzerland)
Geosciences (Switzerland) Earth and Planetary Sciences-Earth and Planetary Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
395
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信