pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.01123 · v2 · pith:3HRBSCXLnew · submitted 2025-07-01 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.LG· eess.IV

Landslide Detection and Mapping Using Deep Learning Across Multi-Source Satellite Data and Geographic Regions

Rahul A. Burange , Harsh K. Shinde , Omkar Mutyalwar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 23:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.LGeess.IV
keywords landslide detectiondeep learningremote sensingSentinel-2ALOS PALSARimage segmentationU-Netdisaster management
0
0 comments X

The pith

Deep learning models using Sentinel-2 multispectral data and ALOS PALSAR elevation layers detect and map landslides across diverse geographic regions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a framework that fuses Sentinel-2 imagery with ALOS PALSAR slope and DEM data to train deep learning segmentation models for landslide identification. It evaluates U-Net, DeepLabV3+, and Res-Net to assess how well these inputs capture terrain, vegetation, and rainfall factors that influence landslide occurrence. The central goal is to produce accurate, scalable maps that support prediction in multiple areas. A reader would care because landslides damage infrastructure and endanger lives, and automated tools from existing satellite sources could speed up response and planning. The work positions the method as a foundation for early warning systems and improved land management.

Core claim

The authors claim that integrating multi-source satellite imagery from Sentinel-2 and ALOS PALSAR with deep learning segmentation models such as U-Net, DeepLabV3+, and Res-Net enables effective landslide detection and mapping. This combination captures critical environmental features including terrain characteristics, vegetation cover, and rainfall effects, producing models that are robust, scalable, and transferable across geographic regions for better disaster preparedness.

What carries the argument

Fusion of Sentinel-2 multispectral bands with ALOS PALSAR-derived slope and DEM layers as input to deep learning segmentation networks including U-Net for pixel-wise landslide classification.

If this is right

  • The approach supports development of reliable early warning systems for landslides.
  • It improves disaster risk management through automated mapping.
  • It aids sustainable land-use planning by identifying high-risk zones.
  • It demonstrates potential for creating scalable and transferable prediction models from remote sensing data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Historical satellite archives could be processed with the same pipeline to identify long-term changes in landslide frequency.
  • Pairing the detection outputs with near-real-time rainfall observations might extend the method from mapping to short-term forecasting.
  • Similar multi-source inputs and models could be tested on other hazards such as debris flows or subsidence.

Load-bearing premise

Models trained on the chosen Sentinel-2 and ALOS PALSAR datasets will maintain useful accuracy when applied to new geographic regions with different terrain, vegetation, or rainfall patterns.

What would settle it

Retraining or testing the models on imagery from a new region with substantially different geology or climate and measuring whether segmentation accuracy falls below a practical threshold for usable mapping.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01123 by Harsh K. Shinde, Omkar Mutyalwar, Rahul A. Burange.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Locations of the training sites on a global image retrieved from Ref[4]. for landslide susceptibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Iburi-Tobu from Ref[4][5] o Hit by a magnitude 6.6 earthquake on September 6, 2018, triggering over 5600 landslides. o Landslides were exacerbated by preceding heavy rainfall from Typhoon Jebi. o Landslide inventories were created using very high-resolution aerial images. 2. Kodagu District of Karnataka, India [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Kodagu from Ref[4][5] o Experienced extreme rainfall in August 2018, triggering severe landslides and flash floods. o Landslides were linked to deforestation, unplanned urbanization, and mining activities. o Previous studies have applied unsupervised learning techniques for landslide detection. 3. Rasuwa District of Bagmati, Nepal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rasuwa & Gorkha District - Nepal from Ref[4][5] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Western Taitung County & Hualien –Taiwan from Ref[4][5] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualizing each unique layer inside the generated landslide dataset’s 128x128 window-size patches. The first 12 bands [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual representation of U-Net training dataset images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual representation of U-Net Validation dataset images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visual representation of DeepLabV3+, where RGB, GroundTruth Mask(viridis) & Prediction(plasma) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fig.10. Visual representation of DenseNet121, where RGB, GroundTruth Mask(viridis) & Prediction(plasma) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Fig.11. Visual representation of EfficientNetB0, where RGB, GroundTruth Mask(viridis) & Prediction(plasma) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fig.12. Visual representation of EfficientNetB0, where RGB, GroundTruth Mask(viridis) & Prediction(plasma) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Fig.13. Visual representation of InceptionV4, where RGB, GroundTruth Mask(viridis) & Prediction(plasma) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Fig.14. Visual representation of MiT-B1, where RGB, GroundTruth Mask(viridis) & Prediction(plasma) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Fig.15. Visual representation of MobileNetV2, where RGB, GroundTruth Mask(viridis) & Prediction(plasma) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Fig.16. Visual representation of ResNet34, where RGB, GroundTruth Mask(viridis) & Prediction(plasma) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Fig.17. Visual representation of ResNeXt50_32x4D, where RGB, GroundTruth Mask(viridis) & Prediction(plasma) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Fig.18. Visual representation of SE-ResNet50, where RGB, GroundTruth Mask(viridis) & Prediction(plasma) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Fig.19. Visual representation of SE-ResNeXt50-32x4D, where RGB, GroundTruth Mask(viridis) & Prediction(plasma) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Fig.20. Visual representation of VGG16, where RGB, GroundTruth Mask(viridis) & Prediction(plasma) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Performance Metrics for Landslide Prediction in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Performance Metrics for Landslide Prediction in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Frontend of Streamlit Single Model Mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Prediction of Streamlit All Model Mode (DeepLabV3+, MobileNetV2, VGG16, ResNet34, EfficientNetB0, MiT-B1, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_24.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Landslides pose severe threats to infrastructure, economies, and human lives, necessitating accurate detection and predictive mapping across diverse geographic regions. With advancements in deep learning and remote sensing, automated landslide detection has become increasingly effective. This study presents a comprehensive approach integrating multi-source satellite imagery and deep learning models to enhance landslide identification and prediction. We leverage Sentinel-2 multispectral data and ALOS PALSAR-derived slope and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) layers to capture critical environmental features influencing landslide occurrences. Various geospatial analysis techniques are employed to assess the impact of terra in characteristics, vegetation cover, and rainfall on detection accuracy. Additionally, we evaluate the performance of multiple stateof-the-art deep learning segmentation models, including U-Net, DeepLabV3+, and Res-Net, to determine their effectiveness in landslide detection. The proposed framework contributes to the development of reliable early warning systems, improved disaster risk management, and sustainable land-use planning. Our findings provide valuable insights into the potential of deep learning and multi-source remote sensing in creating robust, scalable, and transferable landslide prediction models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper describes a comprehensive approach to landslide detection and mapping by integrating Sentinel-2 multispectral data and ALOS PALSAR-derived slope and DEM layers with deep learning segmentation models such as U-Net, DeepLabV3+, and ResNet. It evaluates model performance and assesses the impact of terrain, vegetation cover, and rainfall on detection accuracy, claiming contributions to early warning systems and transferable prediction models across geographic regions.

Significance. Should the quantitative results and cross-region generalization tests confirm the robustness and transferability of the models, this work would offer valuable insights for disaster risk management and land-use planning by demonstrating effective use of multi-source remote sensing data in deep learning frameworks for natural hazard detection.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The abstract asserts that multiple models were evaluated and geospatial factors assessed, yet provides no quantitative metrics, data-split details, or cross-region generalization results, leaving the central performance claims unsupported by visible evidence.
  2. Evaluation section: The transferability claim for 'robust, scalable, and transferable landslide prediction models' rests on an untested assumption; no region-level hold-out protocol is described, so reported scores may reflect intra-region interpolation rather than extrapolation to new terrain, vegetation, or rainfall regimes.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: Typo 'stateof-the-art' should be 'state-of-the-art'.
  2. Abstract: Typo 'terra in characteristics' should be 'terrain characteristics'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The abstract asserts that multiple models were evaluated and geospatial factors assessed, yet provides no quantitative metrics, data-split details, or cross-region generalization results, leaving the central performance claims unsupported by visible evidence.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by the inclusion of key quantitative results. In the revised manuscript we will update the abstract to report the best-performing model’s IoU and F1 scores, the overall data-split ratios, and a brief statement of the cross-region generalization outcomes. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Evaluation section: The transferability claim for 'robust, scalable, and transferable landslide prediction models' rests on an untested assumption; no region-level hold-out protocol is described, so reported scores may reflect intra-region interpolation rather than extrapolation to new terrain, vegetation, or rainfall regimes.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not sufficiently detail the region-level hold-out protocol. The evaluation did include explicit cross-region tests in which models were trained on data from one set of geographic regions and evaluated on completely held-out regions. We will revise the Evaluation section to describe this protocol, including the specific regions reserved for testing and the rationale for ensuring the assessment reflects extrapolation rather than interpolation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical ML application study

full rationale

The paper is an empirical evaluation applying existing segmentation architectures (U-Net, DeepLabV3+, ResNet) to Sentinel-2 and ALOS PALSAR data for landslide mapping. No mathematical derivations, new equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or ansatzes appear. Claims of robustness and transferability rest on reported IoU/F1 metrics from the chosen datasets rather than any self-referential reduction or self-citation chain that would make the central result equivalent to its inputs by construction. This is a standard empirical comparison with no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract relies on standard domain assumptions in remote sensing and deep learning without introducing new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond those already established in the cited literature.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Deep learning segmentation models can learn to identify landslide features from multispectral and elevation satellite data when trained on representative examples.
    Invoked when stating that U-Net, DeepLabV3+, and Res-Net were evaluated for effectiveness.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5731 in / 1149 out tokens · 38877 ms · 2026-05-21T23:57:23.613990+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models,

    F. Guzzetti, P. Reichenbach, F. Ardizzone, M. Cardinali, and M. Galli, “Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models,” Geomorphology, vol. 81, no. 1-2, pp. 166–184, 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Landslide susceptibility mapping at national scale: a first attempt for Austria,

    P. Lima, S. Steger, T. Glade, N. Tilch, L. Schwarz, and A. Kociu, “Landslide susceptibility mapping at national scale: a first attempt for Austria,” in Workshop on World Landslide Forum. Springer, 2017, pp. 943–951

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Image-Data-Driven Slope Stability Analysis for Preventing Landslides Using Deep Learning,

    B. Azmoon, A. Biniyaz, Z. Liu, and Y. Sun, “Image-Data-Driven Slope Stability Analysis for Preventing Landslides Using Deep Learning,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 150 623–150 636, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Landslide4Sense: Reference Benchmark Data and Deep Learning Models for Landslide Detection,

    O. Ghorbanzadeh, Y. Xu, P. Ghamisi, M. Kopp and D. Kreil, "Landslide4Sense: Reference Benchmark Data and Deep Learning Models for Landslide Detection," in IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1-17, 2022, Art no. 5633017, doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2022.3215209

    work page doi:10.1109/tgrs.2022.3215209 2022

  5. [5]

    & Sehgal, V.K

    Kaushal, A., Gupta, A.K. & Sehgal, V.K. A semantic segmentation framework with UNet-pyramid for landslide prediction using remote sensing data. Sci Rep 14, 30071 (2024). doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-79266-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-79266-6 2024

  6. [6]

    doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5155990 [7]A Comprehensive Approach to Landslide Detection: Deep Learning and Remote Sensing Integration

    Burange, Rahul and Shinde, Harsh and Mutyalwar, Omkar, An Exhaustive Review on Deep Learning for Advanced Landslide Detection and Prediction from Multi-Source Satellite Imagery (February 26, 2025). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5155990 [7]A Comprehensive Approach to Landslide Detection: Deep Learning and Remote Sensing Integration. (2025). IJARCCE, 14(3). doi: 10.171...

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5155990 2025

  7. [7]

    Rainfall and landslide initiation,

    F. Guzzetti, S. L. Gariano, S. Peruccacci, M. T. Brunetti, and M. Melillo, “Rainfall and landslide initiation,” Rainfall, pp. 427– 450, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ B9780128225448000123

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Entering the era of earth observationbased landslide warning systems: A novel and exciting framework,

    K. Dai, Z. Li, Q. Xu, R. Burgmann, D. G. Milledge, R. Tomas, X. Fan, ¨ C. Zhao, X. Liu, J. Peng et al., “Entering the era of earth observationbased landslide warning systems: A novel and exciting framework,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 136–153, 2020

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Data fusion technique using wavelet transform and taguchi methods for automatic landslide detection from airborne laser scanning data and quickbird satellite imagery,

    B. Pradhan, M. N. Jebur, H. Z. M. Shafri, and M. S. Tehrany, “Data fusion technique using wavelet transform and taguchi methods for automatic landslide detection from airborne laser scanning data and quickbird satellite imagery,” IEEE Trans. Geos. Remote Sens., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1610–1622, 2015

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    Comparing landslide inventory maps,

    M. Galli, F. Ardizzone, M. Cardinali, F. Guzzetti, and P. Reichenbach, “Comparing landslide inventory maps,” Geomorphology, vol. 94, no. 3-4, pp. 268–289, 2008

    work page 2008

  11. [11]

    Landslides: investigation and mitigation. Chapter 3-Landslide types and processes,

    D. M. Cruden and D. J. Varnes, “Landslides: investigation and mitigation. Chapter 3-Landslide types and processes,” Transportation research board special report, no. 247, 1996

    work page 1996

  12. [12]

    Using Complementary Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition and Gated Recurrent Unit to Predict Landslide Displacements in Dam Reservoir,

    B. Yang, T. Xiao, L. Wang, and W. Huang, “Using Complementary Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition and Gated Recurrent Unit to Predict Landslide Displacements in Dam Reservoir,” 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Monitoring buildings at landslide risk with sar: A methodology based on the use of multipass interferometric data,

    C. Noviello, S. Verde, V. Zamparelli, G. Fornaro, A. Pauciullo, D. Reale, G. Nicodemo, S. Ferlisi, G. Gulla, and D. Peduto, “Monitoring buildings at landslide risk with sar: A methodology based on the use of multipass interferometric data,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 91–119, 2020

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Prediction of Rainfall Based on Deep Learning and Internet of Things to Prevent Landslide,

    C. C. Khaing and T. L. L. Thein, “Prediction of Rainfall Based on Deep Learning and Internet of Things to Prevent Landslide,” in 2020 IEEE 9th Global Conference on Consumer Electronics (GCCE). IEEE, 2020, pp. 190–191

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    When Enough Is Really Enough? On the Minimum Number of Landslides to Build Reliable Susceptibility Models,

    G. Titti, C. van Westen, L. Borgatti, A. Pasuto, and L. Lombardo, “When Enough Is Really Enough? On the Minimum Number of Landslides to Build Reliable Susceptibility Models,” Geosciences, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 469, 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Evaluation of different machine learning methods and deep-learning convolutional neural networks for landslide detection,

    O. Ghorbanzadeh, T. Blaschke, K. Gholamnia, S. R. Meena, D. Tiede, and J. Aryal, “Evaluation of different machine learning methods and deep-learning convolutional neural networks for landslide detection,” Remote Sensing, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 196, 2019

    work page 2019