MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216446284 · doi:10.3390/rs13224698

Unsupervised Deep Learning for Landslide Detection from Multispectral Sentinel-2 Imagery

2021· article· en· W3216446284 on OpenAlexaff
Hejar Shahabi, Maryam Rahimzad, Sepideh Tavakkoli Piralilou, Omid Ghorbanzadeh, Saeid Homayouni, Thomas Blaschke, Samsung Lim, Pedram Ghamisi

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer scienceMultispectral imageConvolutional neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)LandslideCluster analysisDigital elevation modelRemote sensingGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new approach based on an unsupervised deep learning (DL) model for landslide detection. Recently, supervised DL models using convolutional neural networks (CNN) have been widely studied for landslide detection. Even though these models provide robust performance and reliable results, they depend highly on a large labeled dataset for their training step. As an alternative, in this paper, we developed an unsupervised learning model by employing a convolutional auto-encoder (CAE) to deal with the problem of limited labeled data for training. The CAE was used to learn and extract the abstract and high-level features without using training data. To assess the performance of the proposed approach, we used Sentinel-2 imagery and a digital elevation model (DEM) to map landslides in three different case studies in India, China, and Taiwan. Using minimum noise fraction (MNF) transformation, we reduced the multispectral dimension to three features containing more than 80% of scene information. Next, these features were stacked with slope data and NDVI as inputs to the CAE model. The Huber reconstruction loss was used to evaluate the inputs. We achieved reconstruction losses ranging from 0.10 to 0.147 for the MNF features, slope, and NDVI stack for all three study areas. The mini-batch K-means clustering method was used to cluster the features into two to five classes. To evaluate the impact of deep features on landslide detection, we first clustered a stack of MNF features, slope, and NDVI, then the same ones plus with the deep features. For all cases, clustering based on deep features provided the highest precision, recall, F1-score, and mean intersection over the union in landslide detection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207