Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation and comparison of the advanced metaheuristic and conventional machine learning methods for the prediction of landslide occurrence

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study aims to assess the superiority of the metaheuristic evolutionary when compared to the conventional machine learning classification techniques for landslide occurrence estimation. To evaluate and compare the applicability of these metaheuristic algorithms, a real-world problem of landslide assessment (i.e., including 266 records and fifteen landslide conditioning factors) is selected. In the first step, seven of the most common traditional classification techniques are applied. Then, after introducing the elite model, it is optimized using six state-of-the-art metaheuristic evolutionary techniques. The results show that applying the proposed evolutionary algorithms effectively increases the prediction accuracy from 81.6 to the range (87.8–98.3%) and the classification ratio from 58.3% to the range (60.1–85.0%).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Donald IB, Chen Z (1997) Slope stability analysis by the upper bound approach: fundamentals and methods. Can Geotech J 34:853–862

    Google Scholar 

  2. Griffiths DV, Lane PA (1999) Slope stability analysis by finite elements. Geotechnique 49:387–403

    Google Scholar 

  3. Su GS, Zhang Y, Chen GQ, Yan LB (2013) Fast estimation of slope stability based on Gaussian process machine learning. Disaster Adv 6:81–91

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rodrigues ÉO, Pinheiro VHA, Liatsis P, Conci A (2017) Machine learning in the prediction of cardiac epicardial and mediastinal fat volumes. Comput Biol Med 89:520–529

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lu P, Rosenbaum MS (2003) Artificial neural networks and grey systems for the prediction of slope stability. Nat Hazards 30:383–398

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sultan N, Savoye B, Jouet G, Leynaud D, Cochonat P, Henry P, Stegmann S, Kopf A (2010) Investigation of a possible submarine landslide at the Var delta front (Nice continental slope, southeast France). Can Geotech J 47:486–496

    Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang G, Cao J, Wang LP (2014) Failure behavior and mechanism of slopes reinforced using soil nail wall under various loading conditions. Soils Found 54:1175–1187

    Google Scholar 

  8. Latifi N, Rashid ASA, Siddiqua S, Majid MZA (2016) Strength measurement and textural characteristics of tropical residual soil stabilised with liquid polymer. Measurement 91:46–54

    Google Scholar 

  9. Moayedi H, Huat B, Thamer A, Torabihaghighi A, Asadi A (2010) Analysis of longitudinal cracks in crest of Doroodzan Dam. Electron J Geotech Eng 15:337–347

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hoang N-D, Pham A-D (2016) Hybrid artificial intelligence approach based on metaheuristic and machine learning for slope stability assessment: a multinational data analysis. Expert Syst Appl 46:60–68

    Google Scholar 

  11. Qi C, Tang X (2018) Slope stability prediction using integrated metaheuristic and machine learning approaches: a comparative study. Comput Ind Eng 118:112–122

    Google Scholar 

  12. Damiano E, Olivares L (2010) The role of infiltration processes in steep slope stability of pyroclastic granular soils: laboratory and numerical investigation. Nat Hazards 52:329–350

    Google Scholar 

  13. Moayedi H, Huat BBK, Kazemian S, Asadi A (2010) Optimization of tension absorption of geosynthetics through reinforced slope. Electron J Geotech Eng 15:93–104

    Google Scholar 

  14. Raftari M, Kassim KA, Rashid ASA, Moayedi H (2013) Settlement of shallow foundations near reinforced slopes. Electron J Geotech Eng 18:797–808

    Google Scholar 

  15. Marto A, Latifi N, Janbaz M, Kholghifard M, Khari M, Alimohammadi P, Banadaki AD (2012) Foundation size effect on modulus of subgrade reaction on sandy soils. Electron J Geotech Eng 17:2015

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gao W, Dimitrov D, Abdo H (2018) Tight independent set neighborhood union condition for fractional critical deleted graphs and ID deleted graphs. Discret Contin Dyn Syst S 12:711–721

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Gao W, Guirao JLG, Basavanagoud B, Wu J (2018) Partial multi-dividing ontology learning algorithm. Inf Sci 467:35–58

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Gao W, Wang W, Dimitrov D, Wang Y (2018) Nano properties analysis via fourth multiplicative ABC indicator calculating. Arab J Chem 11:793–801

    Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang ZF, Liu ZB, Zheng LF, Zhang Y (2014) Development of an adaptive relevance vector machine approach for slope stability inference. Neural Comput Appl 25:2025–2035

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cheng M-Y, Hoang N-D (2014) Slope collapse prediction using Bayesian framework with k-nearest neighbor density estimation: case study in Taiwan. J Comput Civ Eng 30:04014116

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pinheiro M, Sanches S, Miranda T, Neves A, Tinoco J, Ferreira A, Correia AG (2015) A new empirical system for rock slope stability analysis in exploitation stage. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 76:182–191

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lyu Z, Chai J, Xu Z, Qin Y (2018) Environmental impact assessment of mining activities on groundwater: case study of copper Mine in Jiangxi Province, China. J Hydrol Eng 24:05018027

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gao W, Guirao JLG, Abdel-Aty M, Xi W (2019) An independent set degree condition for fractional critical deleted graphs. Discret Contin Dyn Syst S 12:877–886

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Gao W, Wu H, Siddiqui MK, Baig AQ (2018) Study of biological networks using graph theory. Saudi J Biol Sci 25:1212–1219

    Google Scholar 

  25. Aqeel A, Zaman H, El Aal AA (2018) Slope stability analysis of a rock cut in a residential area, Madinah, Saudi Arabia: a case study. Geotech Geol Eng 2018:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  26. Xiao T, Li D-Q, Cao Z-J, Au S-K, Phoon K-K (2016) Three-dimensional slope reliability and risk assessment using auxiliary random finite element method. Comput Geotech 79:146–158

    Google Scholar 

  27. Varnes DJ, Radbruch-Hall D (1976) Landslides cause and effect. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 13:205–216

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pourghasemi HR, Mohammady M, Pradhan B (2012) Landslide susceptibility mapping using index of entropy and conditional probability models in GIS: Safarood Basin, Iran. Catena 97:71–84

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hong H, Miao Y, Liu J, Zhu AX (2019) Exploring the effects of the design and quantity of absence data on the performance of random forest-based landslide susceptibility mapping. Catena 176:45–64

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chen W, Zhang S, Li R, Shahabi H (2018) Performance evaluation of the GIS-based data mining techniques of best-first decision tree, random forest, and naïve Bayes tree for landslide susceptibility modeling. Sci Total Environ 644:1006–1018

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kornejady A, Pourghasemi HR (2019) Producing a spatially focused landslide susceptibility map using an ensemble of Shannon’s entropy and fractal dimension (case study: Ziarat Watershed, Iran), spatial modeling in GIS and R for earth and environmental sciences. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 689–732

    Google Scholar 

  32. He Q, Shahabi H, Shirzadi A, Li S, Chen W, Wang N, Chai H, Bian H, Ma J, Chen Y, Wang X, Chapi K, Ahmad BB (2019) Landslide spatial modelling using novel bivariate statistical based Naïve Bayes, RBF Classifier, and RBF Network machine learning algorithms. Sci Total Environ 663:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  33. Chen W, Pourghasemi HR, Panahi M, Kornejady A, Wang J, Xie X, Cao S (2017) Spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system combined with frequency ratio, generalized additive model, and support vector machine techniques. Geomorphology 297:69–85

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bui DT, Tuan TA, Hoang N-D, Thanh NQ, Nguyen DB, Van Liem N, Pradhan B (2017) Spatial prediction of rainfall-induced landslides for the Lao Cai area (Vietnam) using a hybrid intelligent approach of least squares support vector machines inference model and artificial bee colony optimization. Landslides 14:447–458

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jaafari A, Panahi M, Pham BT, Shahabi H, Bui DT, Rezaie F, Lee S (2019) Meta optimization of an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system with grey wolf optimizer and biogeography-based optimization algorithms for spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility. Catena 175:430–445

    Google Scholar 

  36. Tien Bui D, Shahabi H, Shirzadi A, Chapi K, Hoang N-D, Pham B, Bui Q-T, Tran C-T, Panahi M, Bin Ahamd B (2018) A novel integrated approach of relevance vector machine optimized by imperialist competitive algorithm for spatial modeling of shallow landslides. Remote Sens 10:1538

    Google Scholar 

  37. Moayedi H, Mehrabi M, Mosallanezhad M, Rashid ASA, Pradhan B (2018) Modification of landslide susceptibility mapping using optimized PSO-ANN technique. Eng Comput 2018:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  38. Chen W, Panahi M, Tsangaratos P, Shahabi H, Ilia I, Panahi S, Li S, Jaafari A, Ahmad BB (2019) Applying population-based evolutionary algorithms and a neuro-fuzzy system for modeling landslide susceptibility. Catena 172:212–231

    Google Scholar 

  39. Termeh SVR, Kornejady A, Pourghasemi HR, Keesstra S (2018) Flood susceptibility mapping using novel ensembles of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system and metaheuristic algorithms. Sci Total Environ 615:438–451

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tien Bui D, Khosravi K, Li S, Shahabi H, Panahi M, Singh V, Chapi K, Shirzadi A, Panahi S, Chen W (2018) New hybrids of ANFIS with several optimization algorithms for flood susceptibility modeling. Water 10:1210

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hong H, Panahi M, Shirzadi A, Ma T, Liu J, Zhu A-X, Chen W, Kougias I, Kazakis N (2018) Flood susceptibility assessment in Hengfeng area coupling adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system with genetic algorithm and differential evolution. Sci Total Environ 621:1124–1141

    Google Scholar 

  42. Pham BT, Prakash I, Singh SK, Shirzadi A, Shahabi H, Bui DT (2019) Landslide susceptibility modeling using reduced error pruning trees and different ensemble techniques: hybrid machine learning approaches. Catena 175:203–218

    Google Scholar 

  43. Chen W, Panahi M, Pourghasemi HR (2017) Performance evaluation of GIS-based new ensemble data mining techniques of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) with genetic algorithm (GA), differential evolution (DE), and particle swarm optimization (PSO) for landslide spatial modelling. Catena 157:310–324

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tien Bui D, Pham BT, Nguyen QP, Hoang N-D (2016) Spatial prediction of rainfall-induced shallow landslides using hybrid integration approach of Least-Squares Support Vector Machines and differential evolution optimization: a case study in Central Vietnam. Int J Dig Earth 9:1077–1097

    Google Scholar 

  45. Demir G, Aytekin M, Akgun A (2015) Landslide susceptibility mapping by frequency ratio and logistic regression methods: an example from Niksar-Resadiye (Tokat, Turkey). Arab J Geosci 8:1801–1812

    Google Scholar 

  46. Chen W, Chai H, Sun X, Wang Q, Ding X, Hong H (2016) A GIS-based comparative study of frequency ratio, statistical index and weights-of-evidence models in landslide susceptibility mapping. Arab J Geosci 9:204

    Google Scholar 

  47. Youssef AM, Pradhan B, Jebur MN, El-Harbi HM (2015) Landslide susceptibility mapping using ensemble bivariate and multivariate statistical models in Fayfa area, Saudi Arabia. Environ Earth Sci 73:3745–3761

    Google Scholar 

  48. Chen W, Yan X, Zhao Z, Hong H, Bui DT, Pradhan B (2019) Spatial prediction of landslide susceptibility using data mining-based kernel logistic regression, naive Bayes and RBFNetwork models for the Long County area (China). Bull Eng Geol Environ 78:247–266

    Google Scholar 

  49. Yang J, Song C, Yang Y, Xu C, Guo F, Xie L (2019) New method for landslide susceptibility mapping supported by spatial logistic regression and GeoDetector: a case study of Duwen Highway Basin, Sichuan Province, China. Geomorphology 324:62–71

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wang Q, Li W, Chen W, Bai H (2015) GIS-based assessment of landslide susceptibility using certainty factor and index of entropy models for the Qianyang County of Baoji city, China. J Earth Syst Sci 124:1399–1415

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yao X, Tham LG, Dai FC (2008) Landslide susceptibility mapping based on support vector machine: a case study on natural slopes of Hong Kong, China. Geomorphology 101:572–582

    Google Scholar 

  52. Zare M, Pourghasemi HR, Vafakhah M, Pradhan B (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping at Vaz Watershed (Iran) using an artificial neural network model: a comparison between multilayer perceptron (MLP) and radial basic function (RBF) algorithms. Arab J Geosci 6:2873–2888

    Google Scholar 

  53. Polykretis C, Chalkias C, Ferentinou M (2017) Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) modeling for landslide susceptibility assessment in a Mediterranean hilly area. Bull Eng Geol Environ 2017:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tian Y, Xu C, Hong H, Zhou Q, Wang D (2019) Mapping earthquake-triggered landslide susceptibility by use of artificial neural network (ANN) models: an example of the 2013 Minxian (China) Mw 5.9 event. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 10:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  55. Lee S, Hong S-M, Jung H-S (2017) A support vector machine for landslide susceptibility mapping in Gangwon Province, Korea. Sustainability 9:48

    Google Scholar 

  56. Pradhan B, Lee S (2010) Regional landslide susceptibility analysis using back-propagation neural network model at Cameron Highland, Malaysia. Landslides 7:13–30

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wu J, Yu X, Gao W (2017) Disequilibrium multi-dividing ontology learning algorithm. Commun Stat Theory Methods 46:8925–8942

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  58. Menard S (1995) Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage University Series, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2005) The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. Geomorphology 65:15–31

    Google Scholar 

  60. Hebb DO (1949) The organization of behavior. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  61. Bottou L (2010) Large-scale machine learning with stochastic gradient descent, Proceedings of COMPSTAT’2010. Springer, Berlin, pp 177–186

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Choudhury A, Eksioglu B (2019) Using predictive analytics for cancer identification. In: IISE annual conference, Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers, Orlando, USA

  63. Kohavi R (1995) The power of decision tables. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  64. Nguyen TA, Perkins WA, Laffey TJ, Pecora D (1987) Knowledge-base verification. AI Mag 8:69–75

    Google Scholar 

  65. Larose DT, Larose CD (2014) Discovering knowledge in data: an introduction to data mining. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  66. Atkeson CG, Moore AW, Schaal S (1997) Locally weighted learning for control. Lazy learning. Springer, Berlin, pp 75–113

    Google Scholar 

  67. Friedman JH (1995) Intelligent local learning for prediction in high dimensions

  68. Dhakate PP, Patil S, Rajeswari K, Abin D (2014) Preprocessing and classification in WEKA using different classifiers. Int J Eng Res Appl 4:91–93

    Google Scholar 

  69. Gao W, Zhu L, Wang K (2015) Ontology sparse vector learning algorithm for ontology similarity measuring and ontology mapping via ADAL technology. Int J Bifurc Chaos 25:1540034

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  70. Dorigo M (1992) Optimization, learning and natural algorithms. PhD Thesis, Politecnico di Milano, Italy

  71. Simon D (2008) Biogeography-based optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 12:702–713

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ma H, Simon D (2011) Blended biogeography-based optimization for constrained optimization. Eng Appl Artif Intell 24:517–525

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ergezer M, Simon D, Du D (2009) Oppositional biogeography-based optimization. In: 2009 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, San Antonio, TX, USA

  74. Ahmadlou M, Karimi M, Alizadeh S, Shirzadi A, Parvinnejhad D, Shahabi H, Panahi M (2018) Flood susceptibility assessment using integration of adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and biogeography-based optimization (BBO) and BAT algorithms (BA). Geocarto Int 34:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  75. Bianchi L, Dorigo M, Gambardella LM, Gutjahr WJ (2009) A survey on metaheuristics for stochastic combinatorial optimization. Nat Comput 8:239–287

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  76. Schwefel H-PP (1993) Evolution and optimum seeking: the sixth generation. Wiley, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  77. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  78. Moayedi H, Raftari M, Sharifi A, Jusoh WAW, Rashid ASA (2019) Optimization of ANFIS with GA and PSO estimating α ratio in driven piles. Eng Comput 2019:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  79. Bui X-N, Moayedi H, Rashid ASA (2019) Developing a predictive method based on optimized M5Rules–GA predicting heating load of an energy-efficient building system. Eng Comput 2019:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  80. Davis L (1991) Handbook of genetic algorithms, 1st edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

    Google Scholar 

  81. Whitley D (1994) A genetic algorithm tutorial. Stat Comput 4:65–85

    Google Scholar 

  82. Ling LY (2016) Participatory search algorithms and applications. Doctorate thesis, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Universidade Estadual De Campinas, Brazil

  83. Eberhart R, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science, 1995 (MHS'95)

  84. Nguyen H, Moayedi H, Foong LK, Al Najjar HAH, Jusoh WAW, Rashid ASA, Jamali J (2019) Optimizing ANN models with PSO for predicting short building seismic response. Eng Comput 2019:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  85. Nguyen H, Moayedi H, Jusoh WAW, Sharifi A (2019) Proposing a novel predictive technique using M5Rules-PSO model estimating cooling load in energy-efficient building system. Eng Comput 2019:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  86. Kennedy J (2010) Particle swarm optimization. Encyclop Mach Learn 2010:760–766

    Google Scholar 

  87. Poli R, Kennedy J, Blackwell T (2007) Particle swarm optimization. Swarm Intell 1:33–57

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, Xi’an, 710054, Shaanxi, China

    Chao Yuan

  2. Department for Management of Science and Technology Development, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Hossein Moayedi

  3. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Hossein Moayedi

Authors
  1. Chao Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hossein Moayedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hossein Moayedi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yuan, C., Moayedi, H. Evaluation and comparison of the advanced metaheuristic and conventional machine learning methods for the prediction of landslide occurrence. Engineering with Computers 36, 1801–1811 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00798-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00798-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation