the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A robust multi-indicator framework for landslide early warning using complementary statistical physics-based diagnostics
Abstract. Landslide early warning remains challenging because many slopes evolve through intermittent, nonlinear, and non-monotonic deformation before catastrophic failure. Here, we develop an integrated early warning framework that combines three statistical physics-based diagnostics: velocity b-value tracking, dragon-king detection, and log-periodic power law singularity (LPPLS) time-to-failure analysis. The velocity b-value captures long-term changes in the distribution of slope displacement rates, dragon-king detection identifies statistically significant extreme velocity outliers, and LPPLS analysis describes the quasi-deterministic evolution towards a finite-time singularity yielding probabilistic estimates of the failure time and its uncertainty. Applied pseudo-prospectively to the Preonzo, Veslemannen, and Stampa landslides, the framework reveals a coherent sequence of precursory signals: b-value decline generally appears first, dragon-king outliers emerge later as failure becomes imminent, and LPPLS forecasts become increasingly constrained during the final acceleration stage. These complementary indicators are integrated into a traffic-light warning scheme that translates complex rupture dynamics into operationally interpretable warning levels. By combining precursory signals across multiple timescales, the proposed framework establishes a robust and physically grounded foundation for next-generation landslide early warning.
- Preprint
(4091 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3880 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2565', Guoqi Qian, 11 Jun 2026
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2565', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Aug 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2565', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Aug 2026
Review of egusphere-2026-2565
A robust multi-indicator framework for landslide early warning using complementary statistical physics-based diagnostics
This manuscript presents a traffic light system (green – yellow – orange – red) to support emergency management decisions around landslides with the temporal evolution of three diagnostics used simultaneously to determine the appropriate warning level. This system is then applied to three major landslides, to illustrate how the levels would have worked in practice. While the diagnostics themselves are not new, the novelty of the work is the use of all three concurrently.
Overall, while I was excited initially to read about the approach, there was not enough information within the article or supplementary material for me to follow exactly how the authors had done the work, and ultimately, I do not trust the results. Below, I have provided several comments, but mainly I think a lot more clarity and transparency throughout will greatly improve the work.
Traffic light system transitions: From what I understand, the warning level at any given time is dependent only on the three diagnostics at that same time in essentially a non-equal voting set up (Table 2). So, within the warning levels themselves, there are no forced transitions (e.g., don’t have to go yellow to orange to red, can go green to red), no system memory, and it mainly relies on the dragon-king p-value (e.g., Figure 8). This implies that there is no underlying process that this warning system is trying to mimic, with the diagnostics acting as informed observations. I wonder if this is a missed opportunity, or if the authors could explain what they think the warning system represents?
Pooled data and the inverse gamma fitting process (e.g., Figures 2, 6b, 9b): “Pooled data” – how were the data pooled, and why – this is assuming that all radar points are equally informative at all times, why not fit individually and use any variance as a first attempt at an uncertainty estimate in your fit? It was also not clear how these lines were fit – e.g., Figure 9b – none of these look to be a good fit, especially if we’re most interested in the tails, and they look to be fixed in place for the lower x values. Maybe providing an R2 value or similar for each of these would be beneficial. It is also hard to see in some cases which data are new, especially when there appear to be new “pooled” data, but not new individual measurements?
Predictions of time-to-failure in the past (e.g., Figure 10): Anything below the red-dotted line is essentially saying – at this time, we predict that failure has already happened? Although, it looks like the LLPLS state was pretty much ignored during the traffic light system, maybe this is why? Because it didn’t work well as a predictor?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2565-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 195 | 148 | 24 | 367 | 36 | 17 | 15 |
- HTML: 195
- PDF: 148
- XML: 24
- Total: 367
- Supplement: 36
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
See the attachment