Controlled ablation study reveals encoder backbones dominate performance over modular refinements in global landslide segmentation, suggesting architectural priorities for post-disaster mapping.
Rapid post-earthquake landslide mapping is critical for emergency response, yet the quantitative hierarchy of architectural choices in U-Net-based segmentation remains unresolved. Using the Globally Distributed Coseismic Landslide Dataset (GDCLD; nine earthquakes, four continents), we conducted controlled ablations to isolate the contributions of encoder backbones (EfficientNet-b4, ResNet34, DenseNet121) and task-specific modules (RFB, CBAM, PANet). EfficientNet-b4 outperformed ResNet34 by 11.02 pp IoU; per-image IoU differed significantly across the three evaluated encoders (two-sided Kruskal–Wallis test, p < 0.0001), exceeding the cumulative gain of all downstream modules (RFB +0.34 pp, CBAM +0.54 pp, PANet +0.75 pp). EfficientNet regression metrics (MAE, MSE, R2) showed no statistically significant differences across module ablations (p > 0.26), suggesting that gains arose primarily from decision-boundary sharpening rather than large probability-map changes. The final model achieved 82.79% Dice, 71.15% IoU, and 86.86% Recall, with consistent performance across diverse geomorphological and imaging conditions within the present GDCLD evaluation. Independent event-held-out and external-dataset tests are still required to establish broader geographic generalization. These results demonstrate performance within the present GDCLD evaluation; independent event-held-out testing remains necessary for definitive cross-region validation. These findings establish a two-tier design hierarchy—encoder backbones provide the dominant performance capacity within the evaluated U-Net framework, while modules refine decisions via a “see–purify–delineate” mechanism—and propose a dual-metric diagnostic protocol for future architectural evaluation. This hierarchy is limited to the architectures and experimental settings evaluated in this study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: