From Sensor-Wise Accuracy to Episode-Wise Evidence: Auditing DAS Slope Monitoring at Hollin Hill and Brienz
Abstract. Dense distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) records can contain thousands of sensor rows but only one hazard trajectory, allowing row-wise evaluation to overstate warning evidence. We present a finite-record framework linking each claim to its valid unit, split, target provenance, background support, metric, and interpretation boundary. Hollin Hill contains one rainfall-triggered event. In a controlled section-split stress test, every one of 844 evaluation timestamps recurs in fitting, and clock probes reconstruct the shared chronology; purges from 30 min to 24 h reduce usable class support but cannot create independent events. A causal retrospective replay therefore reports alert burden, anchor-relative declaration delay, and rupture-horizon occupancy separately. Brienz provides a second, clustered collapse sequence. Across ten grouped partitions, the balanced-accuracy increase from full sibling-view exposure is positive in every partition, while the one-sibling matched contrast is small. Forty-three of 97 radar intervals match 43 of 101 DAS episodes; a 5,000-draw within-day circular-shift null yields a median of 14 matches (95 % range 8–20; empirical p < 0.001), with the association persisting after excluding 15 June. Sensor-dense data are not event-dense, and chronology, augmentation, episode construction, and incomplete reference catalogs must be represented before DAS results support engineering-warning claims.
REVIEW: From Sensor-Wise Accuracy to Episode-Wise Evidence: Auditing DAS Slope Monitoring at Hollin Hill and Brienz” by Gunjan Kumar Mishra (REF # egusphere-2026-4315)
From what I understand from my personal reading of the manuscript, in this paper, the authors downloaded two open-access DAS datasets recorded in two landslide prone sites, and propose to analyse the data to better understand the potential for landslide early warning (or forecasting, it is not clear). The analysis is not presented in terms of DAS data (strain-rate measurements) but occurrence of statistical events. The discussion is not fully understandable.
Overall, I found the manuscript either cryptic, or sloppy or full of jargons. I admit my limited experience in geophysics and DAS studies, but the analysis presented is basically not intelligible for a geo-scientist. I present In the following a number of examples of not-intelligible texts. I strongly recommend rejection.
In my opinion, the manuscript completely fails to address the following aspects, reported in the Review Criteria of the Journal. It can be given by my limited knowledge of the matter debated in the manuscript itself, but for sure it is not readable from most of the members of the geo-sciences community.”
Requested review criteria:
19. Is the technical language precise and understandable by fellow scientists?
20. Is the English language of good quality, fluent, simple and easy to read and understand by a wide and diversified audience?
Examples of Not-understandable sentences
Line 1: “Dense distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) records can contain thousands of sensor rows but only one hazard trajectory, allowing row-wise evaluation to overstate warning evidence"”
Line 2: “We present a finite-record framework linking each claim to its valid unit, split, target provenance, background support, metric, and interpretation boundary”
Line 6: ” A causal retrospective replay therefore reports alert burden, anchor-relative declaration delay, and rupture-horizon occupancy separately. “
Line 7: "Brienz provides a second, clustered collapse sequence. Across ten grouped partitions, the balanced-accuracy increase from full sibling-view exposure is positive in every partition, while the one-sibling matchedcontrast is small”
Line 20: “The statistical unit, however, remains the event rather than the channel or cable section. When one rainfall-triggered sequence is represented by many sensor rows, splitting by sensor can place the same timestamps, rainfall history, and global target in both model fitting and evaluation.”
Line 27: “what can be inferred from finite, multi-sensor DAS records, and which evaluation choices create misleading apparent skill?”. What did the authors means with skill?
Line 31; “The physical-grid ablation is confined to the Supplement”
THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM: Pseudoreplication arises when multiple measurements are analysed as if they were independent experimental units. This phrase probably focuses on a real issue in DAS data, but I can not be sure by the extended use of jargon.
“Precision–recall, ROC, and proper scoring rules summarize row-wise discrimination or probability quality, but they do not by themselves define an alert episode” . ROC acronymous is not presented in the manuscript.
“These process domains differ, but all require explicit grouping, event definitions, and background burden”