Landslide detection using deep learning and object-based image analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent landslide detection studies have focused on pixel-based deep learning (DL) approaches. In contrast, intuitive annotation of landslides from satellite imagery is based on distinct features rather than individual pixels. This study examines the feasibility of the integration framework of a DL model with rule-based object-based image analysis (OBIA) to detect landslides. First, we designed a ResU-Net model and then trained and tested it in the Sentinel-2 imagery. Then we developed a simple rule-based OBIA with only four rulesets, applying it first to the original image dataset and then to the same dataset plus the resulting ResU-Net heatmap. The value of each pixel in the heatmap refers to the probability that the pixel belongs to either landslide or non-landslide classes. Thus, we evaluate three scenarios: ResU-Net, OBIA, and ResU-Net-OBIA. The landslide detection maps from three different classification scenarios were compared against a manual landslide inventory map using thematic accuracy assessment metrics: precision, recall, and f1-score. Our experiments in the testing area showed that the proposed integration framework yields f1-score values 8 and 22 percentage points higher than those of the ResU-Net and OBIA approaches, respectively.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".