A Spatial Prediction Architecture Utilizing Machine Learning Models for Diverse Forecasting Demands in Coseismic Landslide Scenarios

Jiachen Zhao , Wenkai Feng , Xiaoyu Yi , Yongjian Zhou , Yanlong Zhao

International Journal of Disaster Risk Science ›› : 1 -19.

PDF
International Journal of Disaster Risk Science ›› :1 -19. DOI: 10.1007/s13753-026-00749-3
Article
research-article
A Spatial Prediction Architecture Utilizing Machine Learning Models for Diverse Forecasting Demands in Coseismic Landslide Scenarios
Author information +
History +
PDF

Abstract

Coseismic landslides often occur extensively within a short period after an earthquake, posing severe challenges to emergency response and disaster risk reduction. The existing prediction methods generally fail to balance the dual demands of timeliness and accuracy and exhibit limited generalizability across regions with different geological and tectonic settings. In this article, a staged spatial prediction architecture (SPA) for coseismic landslides is proposed. In the rapid prediction stage, the model leverages readily available topographic, geological, and simplified seismic factors, combined with transfer learning, to rapidly generate landslide probability maps under label-scarce conditions in the target domain. In the accurate prediction stage, the measured seismic parameters and fault distance are introduced, and the rapid prediction outputs are incorporated as prior information to enhance the spatial characterization capability of the model. The results show that the rapid prediction stage achieves an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86 even without labeled data, which can be attributed primarily to effective feature adaptation via transfer learning, whereas the accurate prediction stage further improves the AUC to 0.91 via the integration of high-resolution factors and prior information, significantly improving the delineation of high-risk zones. An ablation study confirmed the distinct contributions of both the transfer learning and prior fusion components to the overall performance. Furthermore, the extension of the proposed framework to pre-earthquake coseismic landslide forecasting is explored, achieving an AUC of 0.85 and demonstrating its potential for use in broader disaster risk management scenarios.

Keywords

Coseismic landslide / Domain adaptation / Machine learning / Pre-earthquake prediction / Spatial prediction architecture / Transfer learning

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Jiachen Zhao, Wenkai Feng, Xiaoyu Yi, Yongjian Zhou, Yanlong Zhao. A Spatial Prediction Architecture Utilizing Machine Learning Models for Diverse Forecasting Demands in Coseismic Landslide Scenarios. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 1-19 DOI:10.1007/s13753-026-00749-3

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

References

[1]

Arafeh, M., H. Ahmad, O. Hadi, M. Azzam, T. Chamseddine, and D. Zbigniew. 2022. Independent and identically distributed (IID) data assessment in federated learning. In Proceedings of GLOBECOM 20222022 IEEE global communications conference, 4–8 December 2022, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 293–298.

[2]

Ba ZN, Zhao JX, Zhang YS, Wu MT, Mu SC. A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis method incorporating physics-based simulation and ground motion prediction equation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2025, 16(3): 392-407

[3]

Cantarino I, Carrion MA, Goerlich F, Ibañez VM. A ROC analysis-based classification method for landslide susceptibility maps. Landslides, 2019, 16: 265-282

[4]

Chen, T.Q., and C. Guestrin. 2016. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 13–17 August 2016, San Francisco, CA, USA.

[5]

Dai LX, Fan XM, Wang X, Fang CY, Zou CB, Tang XC, Wei ZL, Xia MY, et al.. Coseismic landslides triggered by the 2022 Luding Ms6.8 earthquake China. Landslides, 2023, 20: 1277-1292

[6]

Devkota KC, Regmi AD, Pourghasemi HR, Yoshida K, Pradhan B, Ryu IC, Dhital MR, Althuwaynee OF. Landslide susceptibility mapping using certainty factor, index of entropy and logistic regression models in GIS and their comparison at Mugling-Narayanghat road section in Nepal Himalaya. Natural Hazards, 2013, 65: 135-165

[7]

Fang L, Wang Q, Yue JP, Xing Y. Analysis of optimal buffer distance for linear hazard factors in landslide susceptibility prediction. Sustainability, 2023, 15: 10180

[8]

Gao JG. Discussion on earthquake emergency response term. Journal of Catastrophology, 2004, 1: 13-17

[9]

Gao RY, Wang CM, Wu D, Liu HL, Liu XY. Comprehensive application of transfer learning, unsupervised learning and supervised learning in debris flow susceptibility mapping. Applied Soft Computing, 2025, 170: 112612

[10]

Huang YD, Xie CC, Li T, Xu C, He XL, Shao XY, Xu XW, Zhan T, Chen ZN. An open-accessed inventory of landslides triggered by the Ms 6.8 Luding earthquake, China on September 5, 2022. Earthquake Research Advances, 2023, 3: 100181

[11]

Kavzoglu T, Teke A. Predictive performances of ensemble machine learning algorithms in landslide susceptibility mapping using random forest, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and natural gradient boosting (NGBoost). Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2022, 47: 7367-7385

[12]

Kleanthous N, Hussain A, Khan W, Sneddon J, Liatsis P. Deep transfer learning in sheep activity recognition using accelerometer data. Expert Systems with Applications, 2022, 207: 117925

[13]

Klus S, Nüske F, Koltai P, Wu H, Kevrekidis I, Schütte C, Noé F. Data-driven model reduction and transfer operator approximation. Journal of Nonlinear Science, 2018, 28: 985-1010

[14]

Kong LH, Feng WK, Yi XY, Xue ZH, Bai LY. Enhanced landslide susceptibility mapping in data-scarce regions via unsupervised few-shot learning. Gondwana Research, 2025, 138: 31-46

[15]

Lai J, Chiang S, Tsai F. Exploring influence of sampling strategies on event-based landslide susceptibility modeling. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 2019, 8: 397

[16]

Lippiello E, Petrillo G, Godano C, Tramelli A, Papadimitriou E, Karakostas V. Forecasting of the first hour aftershocks by means of the perceived magnitude. Nature Communications, 2019, 10: 2953

[17]

Liu Y, Liu LY, Sun HQ, Chen B, Ma XQ, Ning Y, Qi SW. Flood risk assessment combining machine learning with multi-criteria decision analysis in Jiangxi Province, China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2025, 16(5): 858-869

[18]

Ma SY, Xu C, Shao XY. Spatial prediction strategy for landslides triggered by large earthquakes oriented to emergency response, mid-term resettlement and later reconstruction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2020, 43: 101362

[19]

Martha TR, Roy P, Mazumdar R, Babu Govindharaj K, Vinod Kumar K. Spatial characteristics of landslides triggered by the 2015 Mw 7.8 (Gorkha) and Mw 7.3 (Dolakha) earthquakes in Nepal. Landslides, 2017, 14: 697-704

[20]

Merghadi A, Yunus AP, Dou J, Whiteley J, ThaiPham B, Bui DT, Avtar R, Abderrahmane B. Machine learning methods for landslide susceptibility studies: A comparative overview of algorithm performance. Earth-Science Reviews, 2020, 207: 103225

[21]

Nguyen HD, Dao ND, Shin M. Prediction of seismic drift responses of planar steel moment frames using artificial neural network and extreme gradient boosting. Engineering Structures, 2021, 242: 112518

[22]

Pan SJ, Tsang IW, Kwok JT, Yang Q. Domain adaptation via transfer component analysis. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 2011, 22: 199-210

[23]

Qiu YG, Zhou J, Khandelwal M, Yang H, Yang PX, Li CQ. Performance evaluation of hybrid WOA-XGBoost, GWO-XGBoost and BO-XGBoost models to predict blast-induced ground vibration. Engineering with Computers, 2022, 38: 4145-4162

[24]

Rahman P, Mehnaz S. Significance of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 2024, 5(4): 1-4

[25]

Sato HP, Hasegawa H, Fujiwara S, Tobita M, Koarai M, Une H, Iwahashi J. Interpretation of landslide distribution triggered by the 2005 northern Pakistan earthquake using SPOT 5 imagery. Landslides, 2007, 4: 113-122

[26]

Shao XY, Xu C, Wang P, Li L, He XL, Chen ZN, Huang YD, Xu XW. Two public inventories of landslides induced by the 10 June 2022 Maerkang Earthquake swarm, China and ancient landslides in the affected area. Natural Hazards Research, 2022, 2: 269-272

[27]

Shi Y, Zhang ZG, Xue CH, Feng Y. Machine learning prediction of co-seismic landslide with distance and azimuth instead of peak ground acceleration. Sustainability, 2024, 16: 8332

[28]

Su Y, Chen YX, Lai XH, Huang SX, Lin C, Xie XD. Feature adaptation for landslide susceptibility assessment in “no sample” areas. Gondwana Research, 2024, 131: 1-17

[29]

van Westen CJ, Castellanos E, Kuriakose SL. Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment: An overview. Engineering Geology, 2008, 102: 112-131

[30]

Wang ZW, Hu JJ, Zhang H, Jin CY, Hu L. Ground motion prediction model in Sichuan-Yunnan region and its applicability to the 2021 Ms6.4 Yangbi earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 2022, 42: 200-209

[31]

Wang HJ, Wang L, Zhang LM. Transfer learning improves landslide susceptibility assessment. Gondwana Research, 2023, 123: 238-254

[32]

Wei RL, Ye CM, Sui TB, Ge YG, Li Y, Li J. Combining spatial response features and machine learning classifiers for landslide susceptibility mapping. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 2022, 107: 102681

[33]

Wen HJ, Liu B, Di MR, Li JY, Zhou XZ. A SHAP-enhanced XGBoost model for interpretable prediction of co-seismic landslides. Advances in Space Research, 2024, 74: 3826-3854

[34]

Xue ZH, Yi XY, Feng WK, Kong LH, Li SQ, Zhao JC, Tang XF. A framework for fusing transfer learning and meta-learning for enhanced soil thickness prediction in unsampled areas. CATENA, 2025, 256: 109125

[35]

Yang QY, Wang XM, Yin J, Du AH, Zhang A, Wang LZ, Guo HX, Li DD. A novel CGBoost deep learning algorithm for co-seismic landslide susceptibility prediction. Geoscience Frontiers, 2024, 15: 101770

[36]

Yi YN, Zhang ZJ, Zhang WC, Jia HH, Zhang JQ. Landslide susceptibility mapping using multiscale sampling strategy and convolutional neural network: A case study in Jiuzhaigou region. CATENA, 2020, 195: 104851

[37]

Yu XH, Wang M, Ning CL, Ji K. Predicting largest expected aftershock ground motions using automated machine learning (AutoML)-based scheme. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15: 942

[38]

Yuan R, Chen J. A novel method based on deep learning model for national-scale landslide hazard assessment. Landslides, 2023, 20: 2379-2403

[39]

Zhang C, Wang ZF, Xiao JT, Wang ZD, Zhao DK, Li ZY. Evaluation of co-seismic landslide susceptibility by combining Newmark model and XGBoost algorithm. PLOS One, 2025, 20: e0328705

[40]

Zhang R, Yang YJ, Wang TY, Liu A, Lv JC, He X, Fu Y, Zhang B, et al.. Co-seismic landslide susceptibility mapping for the Luding earthquake area based on heterogeneous ensemble machine learning models. International Journal of Digital Earth, 2024, 17: 2409337

[41]

Zhao B, Su LJ, Xu Q, Li WL, Xu C, Wang YS. A review of recent earthquake-induced landslides on the Tibetan Plateau. Earth-Science Reviews, 2023, 244: 104534

[42]

Zheng H, Liu JF, Wu JD, Liu LY, Shi PJ. Rapid assessment of building losses in the M6.8 Tingri earthquake, Tibet, China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2025, 16(3): 408-432

[43]

Zhou YC, Zhang XM, Wang Y, Zhang B. Transfer learning and its application research. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021, 1920(1): 012058

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s)

PDF

1

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/