一种兼具精度与可解释性的Stacking-SHAP滑坡易发性预测集成方法

doi:10.11947/j.AGCS.2025.20250139

测绘学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (10): 1826-1840.doi: 10.11947/j.AGCS.2025.20250139

一种兼具精度与可解释性的Stacking-SHAP滑坡易发性预测集成方法

黄鑫¹^,²(), 叶健¹(), 刘骋冰¹, 曾秋雨¹, 郭万新¹^,³, 郭志凯¹

^1.西南交通大学地球科学与工程学院，四川　成都　611756
^2.自然资源部重庆测绘院，重庆　401120
^3.中国电建集团江西省电力设计院有限公司，江西　南昌　330096

收稿日期:2025-03-31 修回日期:2025-06-19 出版日期:2025-11-14 发布日期:2025-11-14
通讯作者: 叶健 E-mail:xinhuang@my.swjtu.edu.cn;yejian518@swjtu.edu.cn
作者简介:黄鑫（2001—），男，硕士，研究方向为滑坡易发性建模与分析。E-mail：xinhuang@my.swjtu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(41771419)

A Stacking-SHAP ensemble method for landslide susceptibility prediction with high accuracy and interpretability

Xin HUANG¹^,²(), Jian YE¹(), Chengbing LIU¹, Qiuyu ZENG¹, Wanxin GUO¹^,³, Zhikai GUO¹

^1.Faculty of Geosciences and Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 611756, China
^2.Chongqing Institute of Surveying and Mapping, Ministry of Natural Resources, Chongqing 401120, China
^3.Powerchina Jiangxi Electric Power Engineering Co., Ltd., Nanchang 330096, China

Received:2025-03-31 Revised:2025-06-19 Online:2025-11-14 Published:2025-11-14
Contact: Jian YE E-mail:xinhuang@my.swjtu.edu.cn;yejian518@swjtu.edu.cn
About author:HUANG Xin (2001—), male, master, majors in landslide susceptibility modeling and analysis. E-mail: xinhuang@my.swjtu.edu.cn
Supported by:
The National Natural Science Foundation of China(41771419)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

滑坡易发性预测及诱因分析对于制定科学有效的滑坡灾害防治策略至关重要。然而，当前仍缺乏能够兼具高预测精度与可解释性的滑坡预测模型。为此，本文提出了一种基于可解释性增强的集成学习方法，构建Stacking-SHAP模型，以提升滑坡易发性预测的准确性与诱因分析的可靠性。本文方法采用Stacking集成框架，融合XGBoost、Cat Boost、Light GBM、逻辑回归（LR）、随机森林（RF）等多种机器学习分类器，在保证预测精度的基础上，引入SHAP（shapley additive explanations）算法，以增强模型的可解释性。试验结果表明，Stacking-SHAP模型的AUC值达到0.920，显著优于单一分类器模型，如XGBoost（0.893）、CatBoost（0.894）、LightGBM（0.879）、RF（0.859）和LR（0.794）。更重要的是，相较于SHAP集成单一机器学习模型，Stacking-SHAP可解释增强集成模型在滑坡诱因分析方面表现出更优的综合性能，提高了滑坡致灾因素分析的可信度。整体而言，本文方法兼具高精度预测与高可靠性解释，为滑坡易发性预测与诱因分析提供了一种创新性方法，在滑坡防治与减灾领域具有重要的理论与应用价值。

关键词: 滑坡易发性, 地理大数据, Stacking算法, SHAP算法, 滑坡诱因分析

Abstract:

Landslide susceptibility prediction and triggering factor analysis are crucial for developing scientifically effective landslide disaster prevention and control strategies. However, there is still a lack of landslide prediction models that can achieve both high prediction accuracy and interpretability. To address this, the present study proposes an interpretable enhanced ensemble learning method by constructing the Stacking-SHAP model, aimed at improving the accuracy of landslide susceptibility prediction and the reliability of triggering factor analysis. This model employs a Stacking ensemble framework, integrating various machine learning classifiers, such as XGBoost, CatBoost, LightGBM, logistic regression (LR), and random forest (RF), while ensuring prediction accuracy. Additionally, the shapley additive explanations (SHAP) algorithm is incorporated to enhance model interpretability. Experimental results demonstrate that the AUC value of the Stacking-SHAP model reaches 0.920, significantly outperforming individual classifier models, such as XGBoost (0.893), CatBoost (0.894), LightGBM (0.879), RF (0.859), and LR (0.794). More importantly, compared to SHAP-integrated single machine learning models, the Stacking-SHAP interpretable enhanced ensemble model shows superior overall performance in landslide triggering factor analysis, thereby improving the credibility of landslide causative factor analysis. Overall, this model combines high-accuracy prediction with highly reliable interpretation, offering an innovative approach to landslide susceptibility prediction and triggering factor analysis, with significant theoretical and practical value in landslide prevention and disaster reduction.

Key words: landslide susceptibility, geographical big data, Stacking algorithm, SHAP algorithm, landslide triggering factor analysis

中图分类号:

P237

黄鑫, 叶健, 刘骋冰, 曾秋雨, 郭万新, 郭志凯. 一种兼具精度与可解释性的Stacking-SHAP滑坡易发性预测集成方法[J]. 测绘学报, 2025, 54(10): 1826-1840.

Xin HUANG, Jian YE, Chengbing LIU, Qiuyu ZENG, Wanxin GUO, Zhikai GUO. A Stacking-SHAP ensemble method for landslide susceptibility prediction with high accuracy and interpretability[J]. Acta Geodaetica et Cartographica Sinica, 2025, 54(10): 1826-1840.

图/表 16

图1

图2

表1

图3

表2

图4

表3

图5

图6

表4

图7

图8

表5

图9

图10

图11

参考文献 29

[1]	FROUDE M J, PETLEY D N. Global fatal landslide occurrence from 2004 to 2016[J]. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2018, 18(8): 2161-2181.
[2]	ZHANG Shuai, LI Can, PENG Jingyu, et al. Fatal landslides in China from 1940 to 2020: occurrences and vulnerabilities[J]. Landslides, 2023, 20(6): 1243-1264.
[3]	GUZZETTI F, REICHENBACH P, CARDINALI M, et al. Probabilistic landslide hazard assessment at the basin scale[J]. Geomorphology, 2005, 72(1/2/3/4): 272-299.
[4]	许强, 朱星, 李为乐, 等. “天-空-地”协同滑坡监测技术进展[J]. 测绘学报, 2022, 51(7): 1416-1436. DOI: . doi: 10.11947/j.AGCS.2022.20220320
	XU Qiang, ZHU Xing, LI Weile, et al. Technical progress of space-air-ground collaborative monitoring of landslide[J]. Acta Geodaetica et Cartographica Sinica, 2022, 51(7): 1416-1436. DOI: . doi: 10.11947/j.AGCS.2022.20220320
[5]	MARJANOVIĆ M, KOVAČEVIĆ M, BAJAT B, et al. Landslide susceptibility assessment using SVM machine learning algorithm[J]. Engineering Geology, 2011, 123(3): 225-234.
[6]	刘纪平, 梁恩婕, 徐胜华, 等. 顾及样本优化选择的多核支持向量机滑坡灾害易发性分析评价[J]. 测绘学报, 2022, 51(10): 2034-2045. DOI: . doi: 10.11947/j.AGCS.2022.20220326
	LIU Jiping, LIANG Enjie, XU Shenghua, et al. Multi-kernel support vector machine considering sample optimization selection for analysis and evaluation of landslide disaster susceptibility[J]. Acta Geodaetica et Cartographica Sinica, 2022, 51(10): 2034-2045. DOI: . doi: 10.11947/j.AGCS.2022.20220326
[7]	王世宝, 庄建琦, 樊宏宇, 等. 基于频率比与集成学习的滑坡易发性评价：以金沙江上游巴塘—德格河段为例[J]. 工程地质学报, 2022, 30(3): 817-828.
	WANG Shibao, ZHUANG Jianqi, FAN Hongyu, et al. Evaluation of landslide susceptibility based on frequency ratio and ensemble learning: taking the Batang-Dege section in the upstream of Jinsha river as an example[J]. Journal of Engineering Geology, 2022, 30(3): 817-828.
[8]	ZHOU Xinzhi, WEN Haijia, ZHANG Yalan, et al. Landslide susceptibility mapping using hybrid random forest with GeoDetector and RFE for factor optimization[J]. Geoscience Frontiers, 2021, 12(5): 101211.
[9]	GORSEVSKI P V, BROWN M K, PANTER K, et al. Landslide detection and susceptibility mapping using LiDAR and an artificial neural network approach: a case study in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio[J]. Landslides, 2016, 13(3): 467-484.
[10]	TIEN BUI D, TUAN T A, KLEMPE H, et al. Spatial prediction models for shallow landslide hazards: a comparative assessment of the efficacy of support vector machines, artificial neural networks, kernel logistic regression, and logistic model tree[J]. Landslides, 2016, 13(2): 361-378.
[11]	LOMBARDO L, CAMA M, CONOSCENTI C, et al. Binary logistic regression versus stochastic gradient boosted decision trees in assessing landslide susceptibility for multiple-occurring landslide events: application to the 2009 storm event in Messina (Sicily, southern Italy)[J]. Natural Hazards, 2015, 79(3): 1621-1648.
[12]	MERGHADI A, YUNUS A P, DOU Jie, et al. Machine learning methods for landslide susceptibility studies: a comparative overview of algorithm performance[J]. Earth-Science Reviews, 2020, 207: 103225.
[13]	AL-NAJJAR H A H, PRADHAN B. Spatial landslide susceptibility assessment using machine learning techniques assisted by additional data created with generative adversarial networks[J]. Geoscience Frontiers, 2021, 12(2): 625-637.
[14]	FANG Zhice, WANG Yi, PENG Ling, et al. A comparative study of heterogeneous ensemble-learning techniques for landslide susceptibility mapping[J]. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 2021, 35(2): 321-347.
[15]	WANG Tianlong, ZHANG Keying, LIU Zhenghua, et al. Prediction and explanation of debris flow velocity based on multi-strategy fusion Stacking ensemble learning model[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2024, 638: 131347.
[16]	HUANG Faming, CHEN Jiawu, LIU Weiping, et al. Regional rainfall-induced landslide hazard warning based on landslide susceptibility mapping and a critical rainfall threshold[J]. Geomorphology, 2022, 408: 108236.
[17]	LOCHE M, ALVIOLI M, MARCHESINI I, et al. Landslide susceptibility maps of Italy: lesson learnt from dealing with multiple landslide types and the uneven spatial distribution of the national inventory[J]. Earth-Science Reviews, 2022, 232: 104125.
[18]	CHA Y, SHIN J, GO B, et al. An interpretable machine learning method for supporting ecosystem management: application to species distribution models of freshwater macroinvertebrates[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2021, 291: 112719.
[19]	WEI Jing, WANG Zhihui, LI Zhanqing, et al. Global aerosol retrieval over land from Landsat imagery integrating Transformer and Google Earth Engine[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2024, 315: 114404.
[20]	董佳奇, 胡冬梅, 闫雨龙, 等. 基于可解释性机器学习的城市O₃驱动因素挖掘[J]. 环境科学, 2023, 44(7): 3660-3668.
	DONG Jiaqi, HU Dongmei, YAN Yulong, et al. Revealing driving factors of urban O₃ based on explainable machine learning[J]. Environmental Science, 2023, 44(7): 3660-3668.
[21]	YANG Changlan, GUAN Xuefeng, XU Qingyang, et al. How can SHAP (shapley additive explanations) interpretations improve deep learning based urban cellular automata model?[J]. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 2024, 111: 102133.
[22]	CHU Wenhao, ZHANG Chunxiao, LI Heng, et al. SHAP-powered insights into spatiotemporal effects: unlocking explainable Bayesian-neural-network urban flood forecasting[J]. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 2024, 131: 103972.
[23]	FENG Zezheng, JIANG Yifan, WANG Hongjun, et al. TrafPS: a shapley-based visual analytics approach to interpret traffic[J]. Computational Visual Media, 2024, 10(6): 1101-1119.
[24]	KANG Y, KIM M, KANG E, et al. Improved retrievals of aerosol optical depth and fine mode fraction from GOCI geostationary satellite data using machine learning over East Asia[J]. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2022, 183: 253-268.
[25]	罗路广, 裴向军, 崔圣华, 等. 九寨沟地震滑坡易发性评价因子组合选取研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2021, 40(11): 2306-2319.
	LUO Luguang, PEI Xiangjun, CUI Shenghua, et al. Combined selection of susceptibility assessment factors for Jiuzhaigou earthquake-induced landslides[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2021, 40(11): 2306-2319.
[26]	张钟远, 邓明国, 徐世光, 等. 镇康县滑坡易发性评价模型对比研究[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2022, 41(1): 157-171.
	ZHANG Zhongyuan, DENG Mingguo, XU Shiguang, et al. Comparison of landslide susceptibility assessment models in Zhenkang County, Yunnan Province, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2022, 41(1): 157-171.
[27]	LUNDBERG S M, LEE S I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions[C]//Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Long Beach: [s.n.], 2017.
[28]	HUANG Faming, MAO Daxiong, JIANG Shuihua, et al. Uncertainties in landslide susceptibility prediction modeling: a review on the incompleteness of landslide inventory and its influence rules[J]. Geoscience Frontiers, 2024, 15(6): 101886.
[29]	OTHMAN A A, GLOAGUEN R, ANDREANI L, et al. Improving landslide susceptibility mapping using morphometric features in the Mawat area, Kurdistan Region, NE Iraq: comparison of different statistical models[J]. Geomorphology, 2018, 319: 147-160.

条件因子	来源	数据采集时间	条件因子	来源	数据采集时间
高程	30 m GDEMV3	2000—2013年	地形湿度指数	30 m GDEMV3	2000—2013年
坡度	30 m GDEMV3	2000—2013年	水流功率指数	30 m GDEMV3	2000—2013年
坡向	30 m GDEMV3	2000—2013年	NDVI	https://www.nesdc.org.cn/	2020年
地形曲率	30 m GDEMV3	2000—2013年	多年平均降水量	https://www.resdc.cn/	2011—2020年
平面曲率	30 m GDEMV3	2000—2013年	土地覆盖类型	https://zenodo.org/	2020年
剖面曲率	30 m GDEMV3	2000—2013年	地层岩性	全国地质资料馆	2002年
地表粗糙度	30 m GDEMV3	2000—2013年	地貌类型	全国地质资料馆	2009年
地表切割深度	30 m GDEMV3	2000—2013年	道路距离	Open Street Map	2023年
地形起伏度	30 m GDEMV3	2000—2013年	河流距离	MapOpen Street	2023年
高程变异系数	30 m GDEMV3	2000—2013年	断层距离	国家地震科学数据中心	2002年

滑坡条件因子	VIF	滑坡条件因子	VIF
坡向	1.179	NDVI	1.737
平面曲率	1.470	多年平均降水量	3.810
剖面曲率	1.472	土地覆盖类型	1.822
地面粗糙度	2.320	地层岩性	1.593
地表切割度	1.919	地貌类型	1.335
高程变异系数	3.421	道路距离	1.996
地形湿度指数	2.962	河流距离	1.782
水流功率指数	2.144	断层距离	1.708

模型名称	模型原理	滑坡易发性预测优势
XGBoost	基于梯度提升决策树算法，通过目标函数优化模型性能，控制过拟合	具有较高的预测精度和泛化能力，可处理复杂非线性关系，在处理复杂地形和多变量数据上具有优势
CatBoost	基于梯度提升决策树框架，使用遗忘树处理类别特征，有效解决梯度和预测偏差问题	高效处理分类变量，提高模型精度，适合类别特征较多的滑坡数据集
LightGBM	基于梯度提升决策树算法，采用直方图分割方法加速训练	具有执行速度快、资源占用少的优势，适用于大规模滑坡数据的预测和分析
RF	基于决策树的集成模型，通过随机抽样生成多个训练子集，构建多棵树并结合输出结果	具有较高的预测精度，能够有效抵抗数据异常值和噪声，适合复杂环境下的滑坡预测
LR	广义线性模型，通过逻辑变换预测事件发生的概率	适用于滑坡易发性评价的二分类问题，能够快速评估滑坡影响因子对滑坡发生的影响

模型	Accuracy	AUC	Precision	Recall	F₁值	MCC	IOA
Stacking	0.896	0.920	0.901	0.890	0.895	0.791	0.895
XGBoost	0.893	0.893	0.896	0.891	0.894	0.787	0.893
CatBoost	0.894	0.894	0.897	0.891	0.894	0.788	0.894
LightGBM	0.879	0.879	0.891	0.866	0.878	0.759	0.879
RF	0.859	0.859	0.871	0.843	0.857	0.718	0.859
LR	0.711	0.794	0.718	0.697	0.708	0.422	0.711

指标	Stacking-SHAP	XGBoost-SHAP	CatBoost-SHAP	LightGBM-SHAP	RF-SHAP	LR-SHAP
特征贡献值标准差	0.020	0.335	0.348	0.020	0.022	0.233
滑坡样本解释方差	0.023	1.416	1.254	0.023	0.006	0.152
非滑坡样本解释方差	0.014	0.850	0.850	0.014	0.014	0.034
RMSE	0.323	0.326	0.325	0.347	0.375	0.537
诱因解释性能综合评分	0.997	0.257	0.276	0.969	0.938	0.556

一种兼具精度与可解释性的Stacking-SHAP滑坡易发性预测集成方法

A Stacking-SHAP ensemble method for landslide susceptibility prediction with high accuracy and interpretability

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 16

参考文献 29

相关文章 5

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	刘雅婷, 陈传法, 何青鑫, 李坤禹. 顾及正负样本优化的滑坡易发性评价[J]. 测绘学报, 2025, 54(2): 308-320.
[2]	吕继超, 张瑞, 何旭, 洪瑞凯, 沙马阿各, 刘国祥. 广域滑坡易发性多分支网络评估及动态变化分析[J]. 测绘学报, 2025, 54(1): 104-122.
[3]	石岩, 王达, 邓敏, 杨学习. 时空异常探测：从数据驱动到知识驱动的内涵转变与实现路径[J]. 测绘学报, 2024, 53(8): 1493-1504.
[4]	刘雅婷, 陈传法. 顾及空间异质性和特征优选的滑坡易发性评价方法[J]. 测绘学报, 2024, 53(7): 1417-1428.
[5]	刘耀林, 刘启亮, 邓敏, 石岩. 地理大数据挖掘研究进展与挑战[J]. 测绘学报, 2022, 51(7): 1544-1560.