Automatic detection of earthquake triggered landslides using Sentinel-1 SAR imagery based on deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earthquake Triggered Landslides (ETLs) are serious secondary hazards of earthquakes, causing severe casualties and property losses, and their rapid, automated and accurate detection is of great value. Due to the all-day and all-weather imaging capability of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), ETL detection using SAR images is promising but faces the problem of insufficient accuracy. In this study, we proposed a deep learning-based ETL detection method to address this problem. Firstly, published ETL inventories and SAR images are combined to generate high-quality training datasets. Then, a landslide detection network of Multi-level Features Effective Weighting and Fusion (MFEWF) is proposed to effectively extract and fuze multi-level landslide features to identify SAR pixels within ETLs. Finally, the ETL boundary is determined based on these identified SAR pixels. This method is verified through three earthquake cases: the 2017 Mainling, China earthquake, the 2018 Palu, Indonesia earthquake and the 2018 Papua New Guinea earthquake. Results show that our method can effectively identify landslide boundaries with high accuracy (88.8%, 81.4% and 82.4% for the three cases), obviously outperforming other deep learning frameworks (e.g. DeepLabV3+). Using Sentinel-1 imagery to achieve such high accuracy in landslide detection, this study will improve emergency response to landslide disasters following earthquakes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".