Assessing the Impact of Multi-Resolution DEMs and Sampling Strategy Uncertainty on Deep Learning-Based Debris Flow Susceptibility Mapping

Authors

  • Jie Dou Badong National Observation and Research Station of Geohazards, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074, China Author
  • Hamza Daud Badong National Observation and Research Station of Geohazards, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074, China Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64862/

Keywords:

Debris Flow, Deep Learning, Sampling Strategies

Abstract

Debris-flow susceptibility mapping requires precise topographic representation and balanced sampling strategies to ensure model robustness and generalizability. This study systematically quantifies the influence of digital elevation model (DEM) resolution (6.5, 12.5, 30, and 90 m) and sampling-strategy uncertainty on the predictive performance of advanced deep-learning (DL) architectures, including one and two-dimensional convolutional neural networks (CNN1D, CNN2D), recurrent neural networks (RNN), and long short-term memory (LSTM) models. A field-verified debris-flow inventory comprising 108 catchments and 13 conditioning factors derived from multi-resolution DEMs and remote-sensing datasets was used for model construction. To evaluate sampling uncertainty, 100 symmetrical iterations of debris-flow and non-debris-flow samples were executed, resulting in a 6.7-10.5% increase in mean accuracy with optimized sample selection. Factor importance derived from Random Forest and Frequency Ratio analyses identified rainfall as the dominant control on debris-flow occurrence. Model performance, assessed through multiple statistical metrics, revealed that the LSTM consistently outperformed other architectures, achieving a maximum accuracy of 0.929 and AUC of 0.973 at 12.5 m resolution. The proposed framework provides a reproducible and scalable approach for multi-resolution DFSM and quantification of sampling-related uncertainty in complex mountainous terrain.

References

Cama, M., Conoscenti, C., Lombardo, L., and Rotigliano, E. (2016). Exploring relationships between grid cell size and accuracy for debris-flow susceptibility models: A test in the Giampilieri catchment (Sicily, Italy). Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-5047-6

Cavazzi, S., Corstanje, R., Mayr, T., Hannam, J., and Fealy, R. (2013). Are fine resolution digital elevation models always the best choice in digital soil mapping? Geoderma, 195, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.11.020

Huang, F., Teng, Z., Guo, Z., Catani, F., and Huang, J. (2023). Uncertainties of landslide susceptibility prediction: Influences of different spatial resolutions, machine learning models and proportions of training and testing dataset. Rock Mechanics Bulletin, 2 (1), 100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rockmb.2023.100028

Ngo, P. T. T., Panahi, M., Khosravi, K., Ghorbanzadeh, O., Kariminejad, N., Cerda, A., and Lee, S. (2021). Evaluation of deep learning algorithms for national scale landslide susceptibility mapping of Iran. Geoscience Frontiers, 12 (2), 505–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.06.013

Xu, Q., Zhang, S., Li, W. L., and van Asch, T. W. J. (2012). The 13 August 2010 catastrophic debris flows after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, China. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12, 201–216. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-201-2012

Downloads

Published

2025-11-27

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request

How to Cite

Assessing the Impact of Multi-Resolution DEMs and Sampling Strategy Uncertainty on Deep Learning-Based Debris Flow Susceptibility Mapping. (2025). Asian Journal of Engineering Geology, 2(Sp Issue), 431-432. https://doi.org/10.64862/

Similar Articles

1-10 of 79

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.