MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412564562 · doi:10.1016/j.geoai.2025.100030

A hybrid deep learning-Bayesian optimization model for enhanced slope stability classification

2025· article· en· W4412564562 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Allazem, Eltayeb Mohamedelhassan

Bibliographic record

VenueGeodata and AI. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLakehead University
KeywordsStability (learning theory)Artificial intelligenceBayesian optimizationBayesian probabilityComputer scienceDeep learningMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of classifying slopes according to their resistance to failure is important in the geotechnical engineering field for ensuring the safety of infrastructure and human life. This research aims to develop a novel Deep Learning-Bayesian Optimization (DL-BO) model for slope stability classification by determining the best model’s hyperparameters. The study focuses on utilizing a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Bidirectional LSTM (Bi-LSTM), and attention mechanism-enhanced LSTM (Attention-LSTM). In addition, this study applies a Bayesian optimization technique for hyperparameters by using a Gaussian Process (GP) with Expected Improvement (EI) acquisition function to create the non-expensive surrogate model. The data used in the study (Appendix A) consisted of 575 real-life slope samples. The dataset was split into 85:15 training and testing sets, respectively. Five-stratified k-fold cross-validation was used to validate the DL-BO models. The dataset consisted of soil and slope characteristics, including unit weight kN/m 3 , cohesion (kPa), angle of internal friction (degrees), pore water pressure ratio, slope height (m), and slope angle (degrees). Widely used statistical metrics in the research literature were applied to evaluate the DL-BO models, including accuracy, precision, recall, specificity, F1-score , and Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC). RNN-BO and LSTM-BO achieved significant model accuracy, reaching 81.6% and 85.1%, and AUC reaching 89.3% and 89.8%, respectively. While Bi-LSTM-BO enhanced the LSTM model, reaching an accuracy of 87.4% and an AUC of 95.1%, Attention-LSTM-BO arrived at an accuracy of 86.2% and an AUC of 89.6%. The rest of the outcomes are presented in the results and discussion section.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeodata and AI.Same topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207