不同机器学习模型在滑坡易感性评估中的比较研究:中国广州市从化区案例研究

IF 4.6 3区 地球科学 Q1 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
China Geology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.31035/cg2023056
Ao Zhang , Xin-wen Zhao , Xing-yuezi Zhao , Xiao-zhan Zheng , Min Zeng , Xuan Huang , Pan Wu , Tuo Jiang , Shi-chang Wang , Jun He , Yi-yong Li
{"title":"不同机器学习模型在滑坡易感性评估中的比较研究:中国广州市从化区案例研究","authors":"Ao Zhang ,&nbsp;Xin-wen Zhao ,&nbsp;Xing-yuezi Zhao ,&nbsp;Xiao-zhan Zheng ,&nbsp;Min Zeng ,&nbsp;Xuan Huang ,&nbsp;Pan Wu ,&nbsp;Tuo Jiang ,&nbsp;Shi-chang Wang ,&nbsp;Jun He ,&nbsp;Yi-yong Li","doi":"10.31035/cg2023056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Machine learning is currently one of the research hotspots in the field of landslide prediction. To clarify and evaluate the differences in characteristics and prediction effects of different machine learning models, Conghua District, which is the most prone to landslide disasters in Guangzhou, was selected for landslide susceptibility evaluation. The evaluation factors were selected by using correlation analysis and variance expansion factor method. Applying four machine learning methods namely Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), landslide models were constructed. Comparative analysis and evaluation of the model were conducted through statistical indices and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The results showed that LR, RF, SVM, and XGB models have good predictive performance for landslide susceptibility, with the area under curve (AUC) values of 0.752, 0.965, 0.996, and 0.998, respectively. XGB model had the highest predictive ability, followed by RF model, SVM model, and LR model. The frequency ratio (FR) accuracy of LR, RF, SVM, and XGB models was 0.775, 0.842, 0.759, and 0.822, respectively. RF and XGB models were superior to LR and SVM models, indicating that the integrated algorithm has better predictive ability than a single classification algorithm in regional landslide classification problems.</p><p>©2024 China Geology Editorial Office.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45329,"journal":{"name":"China Geology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096519224000594/pdfft?md5=7dfe5a4b1b90b0a27e8db257b6c84e46&pid=1-s2.0-S2096519224000594-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study of different machine learning models in landslide susceptibility assessment: A case study of Conghua District, Guangzhou, China\",\"authors\":\"Ao Zhang ,&nbsp;Xin-wen Zhao ,&nbsp;Xing-yuezi Zhao ,&nbsp;Xiao-zhan Zheng ,&nbsp;Min Zeng ,&nbsp;Xuan Huang ,&nbsp;Pan Wu ,&nbsp;Tuo Jiang ,&nbsp;Shi-chang Wang ,&nbsp;Jun He ,&nbsp;Yi-yong Li\",\"doi\":\"10.31035/cg2023056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Machine learning is currently one of the research hotspots in the field of landslide prediction. To clarify and evaluate the differences in characteristics and prediction effects of different machine learning models, Conghua District, which is the most prone to landslide disasters in Guangzhou, was selected for landslide susceptibility evaluation. The evaluation factors were selected by using correlation analysis and variance expansion factor method. Applying four machine learning methods namely Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), landslide models were constructed. Comparative analysis and evaluation of the model were conducted through statistical indices and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The results showed that LR, RF, SVM, and XGB models have good predictive performance for landslide susceptibility, with the area under curve (AUC) values of 0.752, 0.965, 0.996, and 0.998, respectively. XGB model had the highest predictive ability, followed by RF model, SVM model, and LR model. The frequency ratio (FR) accuracy of LR, RF, SVM, and XGB models was 0.775, 0.842, 0.759, and 0.822, respectively. RF and XGB models were superior to LR and SVM models, indicating that the integrated algorithm has better predictive ability than a single classification algorithm in regional landslide classification problems.</p><p>©2024 China Geology Editorial Office.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"China Geology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096519224000594/pdfft?md5=7dfe5a4b1b90b0a27e8db257b6c84e46&pid=1-s2.0-S2096519224000594-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"China Geology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096519224000594\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"China Geology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096519224000594","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

机器学习是当前滑坡预测领域的研究热点之一。为明确和评价不同机器学习模型的特点和预测效果的差异,选取广州市滑坡灾害最易发生的从化区进行滑坡易感性评价。评价因子的选择采用相关分析法和方差扩展因子法。应用四种机器学习方法,即逻辑回归(LR)、随机森林(RF)、支持向量机(SVM)和极梯度提升(XGB),构建了滑坡模型。通过统计指数和接收者工作特征曲线(ROC)对模型进行了比较分析和评估。结果表明,LR、RF、SVM 和 XGB 模型对滑坡易感性具有良好的预测性能,其曲线下面积(AUC)值分别为 0.752、0.965、0.996 和 0.998。XGB 模型的预测能力最高,其次是 RF 模型、SVM 模型和 LR 模型。LR、RF、SVM 和 XGB 模型的频率比(FR)准确率分别为 0.775、0.842、0.759 和 0.822。RF和XGB模型优于LR和SVM模型,表明在区域滑坡分类问题上,综合算法比单一分类算法具有更好的预测能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative study of different machine learning models in landslide susceptibility assessment: A case study of Conghua District, Guangzhou, China

Machine learning is currently one of the research hotspots in the field of landslide prediction. To clarify and evaluate the differences in characteristics and prediction effects of different machine learning models, Conghua District, which is the most prone to landslide disasters in Guangzhou, was selected for landslide susceptibility evaluation. The evaluation factors were selected by using correlation analysis and variance expansion factor method. Applying four machine learning methods namely Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), landslide models were constructed. Comparative analysis and evaluation of the model were conducted through statistical indices and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The results showed that LR, RF, SVM, and XGB models have good predictive performance for landslide susceptibility, with the area under curve (AUC) values of 0.752, 0.965, 0.996, and 0.998, respectively. XGB model had the highest predictive ability, followed by RF model, SVM model, and LR model. The frequency ratio (FR) accuracy of LR, RF, SVM, and XGB models was 0.775, 0.842, 0.759, and 0.822, respectively. RF and XGB models were superior to LR and SVM models, indicating that the integrated algorithm has better predictive ability than a single classification algorithm in regional landslide classification problems.

©2024 China Geology Editorial Office.

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
China Geology
China Geology GEOLOGY-
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
275
审稿时长
16 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