Comparing Algorithm Performance in Machine Learning for Landslide Susceptibility Studies: An Overview


  • Muhammad Arslan Scholar, Department of Computer Science, University of the People, Pasadena, California, United States of America
  • Muhammad Mubeen Scholar, Department of Computer Science, University of the People, Pasadena, California, United States of America
  • G. Anandhi Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science, University of the People, Pasadena, California, United States of America


Natural Disasters, Machine learning, SVM Model, Random Forest Model, ANN


Machine learning algorithms have gained popularity over the past years, and with this comes the rise in their efficiencies; this study demonstrated that machine learning algorithms could successfully be used to identify landslide susceptibility areas. Machine learning algorithms like decision trees, support vector machines, K-Means, Hierarchical Clustering, Self-Organizing Maps (SOMs), artificial neural networks, and Bayesian networks have been used in recent studies. This study thus reviews several studies and results from several datasets and the advantages and disadvantages of these machine learning algorithms comprehensively; it is clear that the decision tree algorithm was the most accurate and interpretable algorithm tested and should be considered for further investigations into landslide susceptibility. The SVM algorithm also performed well in accuracy but was not as interpretable as the decision tree. The K-Means, Hierarchical Clustering, SOM, ANN, and Bayesian network algorithms all produced good results but were more complex and less interpretable than the decision tree. With these insights, future studies should focus on developing more sophisticated algorithms that can better capture the complexity of the problem. Additionally, more data should be collected to accurately reflect the area of interest's characteristics. Finally, the evaluation of algorithms should be conducted in a rigorous, systematic manner to ensure that the algorithms accurately capture the underlying relationships between landslide susceptibility and the various factors.


SEFERCİK UG, KAVZOĞLU T, NAZAR M, ATALAY C, MADAK M. Creation of a Virtual Tour. Exe Utilizing Very High-Resolution RGB UAV Data. International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics. 2022;9(4):151–60.

Gupta SK, Shukla DP. Handling data imbalance in machine learning based landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study of Mandakini River Basin, North-Western Himalayas. Landslides. 2022 Dec 23:1–7.

Mwakapesa DS, Li Y, Xiangtai W, Binbin G, Yimin M. Review on the application of machine learning methods in landslide susceptibility mapping. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Innovation in Computer and Information Science. 2021; 1: 69–72.

Williams J. A comprehensive review of seven steps to a comprehensive literature review. Qual Rep. 2018; 23(2): 345–349.

Lekkalapudi NK. Cross trees: Visualizing estimations using decision trees. Thesis. West Virginia: College of Engineering and Mineral Resources at West Virginia University; 2014.

Roe AD, Weller SJ, Baixeras JO, Brown J, Cummings MP, Davis DO, Kawahara AY, Parr C, Regier JC, Rubinoff D, Simonsen TJ. Evolutionary framework for Lepidoptera model systems. Genetics and molecular biology of Lepidoptera. 2009 Aug 15:1–24.

Arthur F, Morrison III WR. Methodology for assessing progeny production and grain damage on commodities treated with insecticides. Agronomy. 2020 Jun 5;10(6):804.

Joachims T. Efficient performance estimators for SVMs. In: Learning to Classify Text Using Support Vector Machines. Boston, MA: Springer; 2022; 75–102.

Patel M, Shah H. Protein secondary structure prediction using support vector machines (SVMs). 2013 International Conference on Machine Intelligence and Research Advancement. 2013; 594–598.

Shaw WR, Catteruccia F. Vector biology meets disease control: using basic research to fight vector-borne diseases. Nature microbiology. 2019 Jan;4(1):20–34.

Wood WC. Simulation of human memory processes using a system of artificial neural networks (ANNs). Thesis. One Washington Square San Jose, CA, United States: San Jose State University; 2020.

Katagiri S. Applications of artificial neural networks (ANNs) to speech processing. In: Handbook of Neural Network Signal Processing. CRC Press; 2002. 10-1-10-24.

Chanda MM, Banerjee N, Bandyopadhyay G. Using artificial neural networks (ANNs) to improve agricultural knowledge management system (KMS). In: Research Anthology on Artificial Neural Network Applications. IGI Publishers; 2022; 1031–1051.

Grabe M, Grabe M. Means and Means of Means. Generalized Gaussian Error Calculus. 2010: 39–52.

Ahrens H. Means of evidence and means of obtaining evidence. In: Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary. Oxford Press; 2018. 003.0341 16. Kleinig J. K-Means. Ends and Means in Policing. New York: Routledge; 2019; 39–49.

Murtagh F, Contreras P. Algorithms for hierarchical clustering: An overview. WIREs Data Min Knowl Discov. 2021; 2(1): 86–97. 18. Nielsen F. Hierarchical clustering. Introduction to HPC with MPI for Data Science. Cham: Springer; 2016; 195–211.

Murtagh F, Contreras P. Algorithms for hierarchical clustering: An overview, II. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 7, 6: e1219.

Zhao Y, Karypis G, Fayyad U. Hierarchical clustering algorithms for document datasets. Data Min Knowl Discov. 2019; 10(2): 141–168. 21. Zhao Y, Karypis G. Evaluation of hierarchical clustering algorithms for document datasets. CIKM '02: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Information and knowledge management. 2022 Nov; 515–524.

Fassa AI, Kesumawati A. Segmentation of Karhutla hotspot point of Indragiri Hilir Regency 2015 and 2016 using self organizing maps (SOMs). Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematics and Islam. 2018; 1: 336–341.

Naenna T, Embrechts M. Automated magnetocardiogram classifications with self-organizing maps (SOMs). 2004 IEEE Region 10 Conference TENCON 2004. 2004; 2: 458–460.

Furukawa T. SOM of SOMs: Self-organizing map which maps a group of self-organizing maps. Artificial Neural Networks: Biological Inspirations, ICANN. 2005; 391–396.

Shanmuganathan M. (2016). An overview of IRFS on Canadian GAAP — self-organizing maps (SOMs)MS. 2016 SAI Computing Conference (SAI). 2016; 100–107.

Petrilis D, Halatsis C. Combining SOMs and Ontologies for effective web site mining. In: Self Organizing Maps - Applications and Novel Algorithm Design. InTech Open; 2011.

Zhao Y, Karypis G, Fayyad U. Hierarchical clustering algorithms for document datasets. Data Min Knowl Discov. 2020; 10(2): 141–168.

Yang C, Liu L, Huang F, Huang L, Wang X. Machine learning-based landslide susceptibility assessment with optimized ratio of landslide to non-landslide samples. Gondwana Res. 2022.





Review Article