Interpretability of Statistical, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning Models for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping in Three Gorges Reservoir Area

TL;DR

This study compares the interpretability and accuracy of statistical, machine learning, and deep learning models in landslide susceptibility mapping, highlighting the trade-offs between prediction performance and interpretability using different input factor sets.

Contribution

It evaluates how various models and interpretation methods perform in landslide susceptibility mapping, emphasizing the impact of input factor selection on interpretability and accuracy.

Findings

Deep learning models achieved highest accuracy.

Using fewer triggering factors improved interpretability.

Interpretability methods yielded variable explanations across models.

Abstract

Landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) is crucial for identifying high-risk areas and informing prevention strategies. This study investigates the interpretability of statistical, machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) models in predicting landslide susceptibility. This is achieved by incorporating various relevant interpretation methods and two types of input factors: a comprehensive set of 19 contributing factors that are statistically relevant to landslides, as well as a dedicated set of 9 triggering factors directly associated with triggering landslides. Given that model performance is a crucial metric in LSM, our investigations into interpretability naturally involve assessing and comparing LSM accuracy across different models considered. In our investigation, the convolutional neural network model achieved the highest accuracy (0.8447 with 19 factors; 0.8048 with 9 factors), while Extreme Gradient Boosting and Support Vector Machine also demonstrated strong predictive capabilities, outperforming conventional statistical models. These findings indicate that DL and sophisticated ML algorithms can effectively capture the complex relationships between input factors and landslide occurrence. However, the interpretability of predictions varied among different models, particularly when using the broader set of 19 contributing factors. Explanation methods like SHAP, LIME, and DeepLIFT also led to variations in interpretation results. Using a comprehensive set of 19 contributing factors improved prediction accuracy but introduced complexities and inconsistency in model interpretations. Focusing on a dedicated set of 9 triggering factors sacrificed some predictive power but enhanced interpretability, as evidenced by more consistent key factors identified across various models and alignment with the findings of field investigation reports....