Manifestation of SVM-Based Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) Kernel Function in Landslide Modelling

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Support vector machines (SVM) are the most popular machine learning methods currently used to model landslides. To model the complex nature of landslides, the SVM model parameters (kernel function, penalty parameter) should be fine-tuned to achieve the best possible accuracy. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the commonly used rectified linear unit (ReLU) activation function in deep learning for the SVM model as a kernel function. A case study of the Cameron Highlands, located in the Peninsular Malaysia, was selected and a dataset was acquired through the airborne LiDAR system, topographical databases, and SPOT satellite images. The SVM modelling with ReLU kernel was implemented in a Matlab environment. Overall, 11 landslide factors and 81 landslide locations (inventory map) were used. Experimental results showed that the ReLU kernel function could achieve a higher accuracy (0.81) than other kernels when using a lower number of landslide factors. It was found that the ReLU kernel function is more accurate (0.73) than RBF kernel (0.71) when using very limited factors (such as altitude, slope, and curvature). The kernel ReLU could improve the performance of landslide susceptibility modelling with SVM while reducing the need to use large datasets.

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

References

  1. 1.
    Crozier MJ (1999) Landslides. Environmental geology. Springer, Netherlands, pp 371–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pradhan B (2013) A comparative study on the predictive ability of the decision tree, support vector machine and neuro-fuzzy models in landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS. Comput Geosci 51:350–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tien Bui D, Pradhan B, Lofman O, Revhaug I (2012) Landslide susceptibility assessment in Vietnam using support vector machines, decision tree, and Naive Bayes Models. Math Probl Eng 974638. doi: 10.1155/2012/974638
  4. 4.
    Xu C, Dai F, Xu X et al (2012) GIS-based support vector machine modeling of earthquake-triggered landslide susceptibility in the Jianjiang River watershed, China. Geomorphology 145:70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pourghasemi HR, Jirandeh AG, Pradhan B et al (2013) Landslide susceptibility mapping using support vector machine and GIS at the Golestan Province, Iran. JESSE 122(2):349–369Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ballabio C, Sterlacchini S (2012) Support vector machines for landslide susceptibility mapping: the Staffora River Basin case study, Italy. Math Geosci 44(1):47–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hong H, Pradhan B, Jebur MN et al (2016) Spatial prediction of landslide hazard at the Luxi area (China) using support vector machines. EES 75(1):40Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee S, Hong SM, Jung HS (2017) A Support vector machine for landslide susceptibility mapping in Gangwon province, Korea. SUSTAIN 9(1):48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Du W, Wu Y, Liu J et al (2016) Landslide susceptibility mapping using support vector machine model. EJG:7069–7084Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peng L, Niu R, Huang B et al (2014) Landslide susceptibility mapping based on rough set theory and support vector machines: A case of the Three Gorges area, China. Geomorphology 204:287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marjanović M, Kovačević M, Bajat B et al (2011) Landslide susceptibility assessment using SVM machine learning algorithm. Eng Geol 123(3):225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boser BE, Guyon IM, Vapnik VN (1992, July) A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. Paper presented at Proceedings of the Fifth annual workshop on computational learning theory, pp 144–152Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Corte C, Vapni V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nair V, Hinton GE (2010) Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 27th International conference on machine learning (ICML-10), pp 807–814Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE (2012) Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst:1097–1105Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hsu CW, Chang CC, Lin CJ (2003) A practical guide to support vector classification. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, National Taiwan University, July 2003. https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/papers/guide/guide.pdf
  17. 17.
    Pradhan B, Seeni MI, Kalantar B (2017) Performance evaluation and sensitivity analysis of expert-based, statistical, machine learning, and hybrid models for producing landslide susceptibility maps. In: Laser scanning applications in landslide assessment. Springer International Publishing, pp 193–232Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pradhan B, Sameen MI (2017) Landslide susceptibility modeling: optimization and factor effect analysis. In: Laser scanning applications in landslide assessment. Springer International Publishing, pp 115–132Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia
  2. 2.School of Systems, Management and Leadership, Faculty of Engineering and Information TechnologyUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations