the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Automated landslide detection in SAR wrapped interferograms using a geomorphology-constrained YOLO CNN
Abstract. Slow-moving landslides pose significant hazards in mountain environments, requiring improved detection and monitoring capabilities. Traditional mapping is accurate but time-consuming, while multitemporal InSAR approaches are limited by data complexity and velocity constraints. Wrapped dual-pass DInSAR interferograms offer an alternative by preserving deformation signals without phase unwrapping, enabling detection across a wide range of movement rates.
We present a deep learning framework for the automated detection and classification of active slow landslides in Sentinel-1 wrapped SAR interferograms. The model uses a YOLO convolutional neural network ingesting wrapped phase, an InSAR reliability index, and a terrain morphometric attribute layer. We trained, validated, and tested the network on 2243 labelled DInSAR wrapped phase signals from expert geomorphological interpretation over a 1200 km² sector of the Northern Apennines (Italy), using interferograms from ascending and descending orbits generated with multiple temporal baselines between 6 and 30 days.
The network outputs bounding boxes with movement classification, achieving a mean Average Precision of 0.88 and an F1 score of 0.75. It successfully identifies deformation signals across multiple spatial scales, also in interferograms with low signal-to-noise ratio. Our results demonstrate the potential of wrapped DInSAR data combined with deep learning for efficient regional-scale landslide detection and inventory updating.
Status: open (until 14 Oct 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4523', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Sep 2026
reply
- Please replace the random tile-level split with spatially disjoint, temporally disjoint, and event-disjoint splits to eliminate strong leakage from adjacent or repeated observations of the same landslides.
- Please conduct leave-one-interferogram-out and leave-one-landslide-out validation, since random patches from the same scene can share phase texture, topography, acquisition geometry, and annotations.
- Please quantify the extent to which repeated observations of individual landslides occur across training, validation, and test partitions, and report results after grouping all instances from each physical landslide into one split only.
- Please evaluate generalization through an external test area with different lithology, terrain morphology, vegetation, climate, and SAR viewing geometry; a single-site test cannot support claims of framework transferability.
- Please provide a rigorous ablation study that isolates the contribution of wrapped phase, the InSAR sensitivity layer, and the geomorphometric PC1 layer, including statistical uncertainty for every ablation result.
- Please benchmark the customized YOLOv3 model against strong baselines, including phase-only YOLO, coherence-plus-phase input, modern one-stage detectors, segmentation approaches, and an expert-defined non-deep learning detection workflow.
- Please justify the use of raw wrapped phase as a numerical input by explicitly describing phase normalization, circular phase representation, handling of the discontinuity, and the physical validity of additive and multiplicative radiometric augmentation.
- Please report the complete training protocol, including initialization, pretraining status, batch size, learning rate schedule, loss weights, anchor dimensions, augmentation ranges, random seeds, hardware, inference time, and the exact criterion used to select the epoch and confidence threshold.
- Please report mAP across multiple IoU thresholds, including mAP@0.5:0.95, classwise confidence intervals, calibration analysis, and sensitivity to confidence threshold, because performance at only IoU =0.5=0.5=0.5 and a selected threshold of 0.81 is insufficiently informative.
- Please replace the qualitative assertion that many false positives are likely true missed landslides with an independent adjudication protocol, ideally involving blinded expert reassessment, field evidence where feasible, and a revised reference standard with inter-annotator agreement.
ReplyCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4523-RC1
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 144 | 0 | 0 | 144 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 144
- PDF: 0
- XML: 0
- Total: 144
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1