Pixel-wise feature fusion in gully susceptibility: A comparison of feed-forward neural networks and ensemble (voting, stacking) models

Similar to other geologic hazards, gullies pose significant challenges to Nigeria's southernmost State, requiring a reliable susceptibility mapping analysis to support decision-making. However, challenges exist regarding model recommendations, especially in studies utilizing multiple models that perform well but show visual differences, necessitating the fusion of pixel-wise features from base model predictions to present a single useable map. Although hybridised models exist, they often produce results by pairing models rather than fusing multiple model outcomes. While stacking and voting approaches could address this problem, they have remained relatively unexplored. Using a fully connected feed-forward neural network (FNN) with ensemble voting and stacking methods as pixel-wise feature fusions, this study seeks to answer these questions: How can multiple base machine learning (ML) models (Bagging, Random Forest (RF) and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB)) be combined? Do they improve accuracy compared to base models? How do fusion methods differ and generalize to new data? Thirteen (13) conditioning factors were used alongside complex k-fold cross-validation, training, and testing inventory structure of 574 gully and non-gully points. Our k-fold validation and testing results of the Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) show that FNN (AUC: 0.9666 & 0.9670; MAE: 0.1432 & 0.1616) strengthens the base model and generalises better than stacking (AUC: 0.9821 & 0.9598; MAE: 0.0703 & 0.1604) and voting (AUC: 0.9990 & 0.9752; MAE: 0.0532 & 0.1485) but requires parameter optimization. The study expands the knowledge about the fusion of ML methodologies within geospatial analysis and advances gully-related literature within the study area to support mitigation strategies. • Fusion models compensated for inherent weaknesses of base models, improving accuracy. • FNN fusion model, compared to stacking and voting, has more stable accuracy & error differences. • Areas at high risk were identified in southern parts alongside areas with lower risk of gullying. • Topographic and hydro-climatic factors significantly influence gully susceptibility in Anambra. • The fusion model is reliable for policymakers for natural hazards management, globally.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of African Earth Sciences
Published
2025-03-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2025.105633
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Landslides and related hazards
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
16.95
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Pixel-wise feature fusion in gully susceptibility: A comparison of feed-forward neural networks and ensemble (voting, stacking) models

Johnson C. Agbasi, Vincent E. Nwazelibe, Daniel A. Ayejoto, Johnbosco C. Egbueri
7 citations
Journal of African Earth Sciences
Landslides and related hazards
16.95
article

Pixel-wise feature fusion in gully susceptibility: A comparison of feed-forward neural networks and ensemble (voting, stacking) models

Johnson C. Agbasi, Vincent E. Nwazelibe, Daniel A. Ayejoto, Johnbosco C. Egbueri
article en
7 citations

Abstract

Similar to other geologic hazards, gullies pose significant challenges to Nigeria's southernmost State, requiring a reliable susceptibility mapping analysis to support decision-making. However, challenges exist regarding model recommendations, especially in studies utilizing multiple models that perform well but show visual differences, necessitating the fusion of pixel-wise features from base model predictions to present a single useable map. Although hybridised models exist, they often produce results by pairing models rather than fusing multiple model outcomes. While stacking and voting approaches could address this problem, they have remained relatively unexplored. Using a fully connected feed-forward neural network (FNN) with ensemble voting and stacking methods as pixel-wise feature fusions, this study seeks to answer these questions: How can multiple base machine learning (ML) models (Bagging, Random Forest (RF) and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB)) be combined? Do they improve accuracy compared to base models? How do fusion methods differ and generalize to new data? Thirteen (13) conditioning factors were used alongside complex k-fold cross-validation, training, and testing inventory structure of 574 gully and non-gully points. Our k-fold validation and testing results of the Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) show that FNN (AUC: 0.9666 & 0.9670; MAE: 0.1432 & 0.1616) strengthens the base model and generalises better than stacking (AUC: 0.9821 & 0.9598; MAE: 0.0703 & 0.1604) and voting (AUC: 0.9990 & 0.9752; MAE: 0.0532 & 0.1485) but requires parameter optimization. The study expands the knowledge about the fusion of ML methodologies within geospatial analysis and advances gully-related literature within the study area to support mitigation strategies. • Fusion models compensated for inherent weaknesses of base models, improving accuracy. • FNN fusion model, compared to stacking and voting, has more stable accuracy & error differences. • Areas at high risk were identified in southern parts alongside areas with lower risk of gullying. • Topographic and hydro-climatic factors significantly influence gully susceptibility in Anambra. • The fusion model is reliable for policymakers for natural hazards management, globally.

Journal of African Earth SciencesVol. 227
Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University (NG), Texas Christian University (US), University of Freiburg (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Landslides and related hazards
16.95
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.