Abstract
Accurate prediction of soil liquefaction potential is crucial for evaluating the stability of structures in earthquake regions. This study focuses on predicting soil liquefaction using a dataset that included historical liquefaction cases from the 1999 Turkey and Taiwan earthquakes. The dataset was divided into three subsets: Dataset A (fine-grained), Dataset B (coarse-grained), and Dataset C (all samples). Through the analysis of these subsets, the study aims to assess the performance of machine learning algorithms in predicting soil liquefaction potential. This study applied ensemble machine learning algorithms, including extreme gradient boosting, adaptive boosting, extra trees, bagging classifiers, light gradient boosting machine, and random forest, to accurately classify the liquefaction potential of fine-grained and coarse-grained soils. A comparison between the genetic algorithm approach for hyperparameter optimization and traditional methods such as grid search and random search revealed that genetic algorithms outperformed both in terms of average test and train accuracy. Specifically, the light gradient boosting machine yielded the best predictions of soil liquefaction potential among the algorithms tested. The study demonstrated that Dataset B achieved the highest learning performance with accuracy of 0.92 on both the test and training sets. Furthermore, Dataset A showed a training accuracy of 0.88 and a test accuracy of 0.84, while Dataset C exhibited a training accuracy of 0.87 and a test accuracy of 0.87. Future studies could build on these findings by evaluating the performance of genetic algorithms on a wider range of machine learning algorithms and datasets, thus advancing our understanding of soil liquefaction prediction and its implications for geotechnical engineering.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data is available upon request.
References
Abdu-Aljabar RDA, Awad OA (2022) Improving lung cancer relapse prediction using the developed Optuna_XGB classification model. Int J Intellig Eng Syst
Agrawal T (2021) Hyperparameter optimization in machine learning: make your machine learning and deep learning models more efficient. Apress Berkeley CA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-6579-6
Ahmad M, Tang X-W, Qiu J-N, Ahmad F, Gu W-J (2021) Application of machine learning algorithms for the evaluation of seismic soil liquefaction potential. Front Struct Civ Eng 15:490–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0669-5
Ahmad M, Tang X-W, Qiu J-N, Ahmad F (2019) Evaluating seismic soil liquefaction potential using bayesian belief network and C45 decision tree approaches. Appl Sci 9:4226. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9204226
Alizadeh Mansouri M, Dabiri R (2021) Predicting the liquefaction potential of soil layers in Tabriz city via artificial neural network analysis. SN Appl Sci 3:719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04704-3
Almadani M, Kheimi M (2023) Stacking artificial intelligence models for predicting water quality parameters in rivers. J Ecol Eng 24:152–164
Alobaidi MH, Meguid MA, Chebana F (2019) Predicting seismic-induced liquefaction through ensemble learning frameworks. Sci Rep 9:11786. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48044-0
Amini A, Dolatshahi M, Kerachian R (2023) Effects of automatic hyperparameter tuning on the performance of multi-variate deep learning-based rainfall nowcasting. Water Resour Res e2022WR032789
Andrews DC, Martin GR (2000) Criteria for liquefaction of silty soils. In: Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering pp. 1-8
Baecher GB, Christian JT (2005) Reliability and statistics in geotechnical engineering. John Wiley & Sons
Bol E, Önalp A, Arel E, Sert S, Özocak A (2010) Liquefaction of silts: the Adapazari criteria. Bull Earthq Eng 8:859–873
Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2014) CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures (No. UCD/CGM-14/01). Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California at Davis
Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2006) Liquefaction susceptibility criteria for silts and clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132:1413–1426. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:11(1413)
Bray JD, Sancio RB (2006) Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132:1165–1177. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:9(1165)
Cai M, Hocine O, Mohammed AS, Chen X, Amar MN, Hasanipanah M (2022) Integrating the LSSVM and RBFNN models with three optimization algorithms to predict the soil liquefaction potential. Eng Comput 38:3611–3623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01392-w
Cetin KO, Seed RB, Der Kiureghian A, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Kayen RE, Moss RES (2004) Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 130:1314–1340. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:12(1314)
Chen T, Guestrin C (2016) XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system, In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ‘16. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785
Chern S.-G, Lee C.-Y, Wang C.-C (2008) CPT-based liquefaction assessment by using fuzzy-neural network. J Marine Sci Technol https://doi.org/10.51400/2709-6998.2024
Cuocolo R, Ugga L, Solari D, Corvino S, D’Amico A, Russo D, Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, Elefante A (2020) Prediction of pituitary adenoma surgical consistency: radiomic data mining and machine learning on T2-weighted MRI. Neuroradiology 62:1649–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-020-02502-z
Das BM (1993) Principles of soil dynamics. PWS-KENT Publishing Company, Boston, USA
Daviran M, Shamekhi M, Ghezelbash R, Maghsoudi A (2023) Landslide susceptibility prediction using artificial neural networks, SVMs and random forest: hyperparameters tuning by genetic optimization algorithm. Int J Environ Sci Technol 20:259–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04491-3
De M, Kundu A (2022) A hybrid optimization for threat detection in personal health crisis management using genetic algorithm. Int J Inf Tecnol 14:2603–2618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41870-022-00927-8
Demir S, Sahin EK (2023) An investigation of feature selection methods for soil liquefaction prediction based on tree-based ensemble algorithms using AdaBoost, gradient boosting, and XGBoost. Neural Comput Appl 35:3173–3190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07856-4
Dhar J (2022) An adaptive intelligent diagnostic system to predict early stage of parkinson’s disease using two-stage dimension reduction with genetically optimized lightgbm algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 34:4567–4593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06612-4
Díaz JP, Sáez E, Monsalve M, Candia G, Aron F, González G (2022) Machine learning techniques for estimating seismic site amplification in the Santiago basin, Chile. Eng Geol 306:106764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106764
Dietterich TG (2000) Ensemble methods in machine learning, In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Multiple Classifier Systems, MCS ‘00. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–15
Dou J, Yunus AP, Bui DT, Merghadi A, Sahana M, Zhu Z, Chen C-W, Han Z, Pham BT (2020) Improved landslide assessment using support vector machine with bagging, boosting, and stacking ensemble machine learning framework in a mountainous watershed, Japan. Landslides 17:641–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01286-5
Erzin Y, Tuskan Y (2019) The use of neural networks for predicting the factor of safety of soil against liquefaction. Scientia Iranica 26:2615–2623
Evans MD, Seed HB (1987) Undrained cyclic triaxial testing of gravels: the effect of membrane compliance. University of California, College of Engineering
Freund Y, Schapire RE (1997) A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J Comput Syst Sci 55:119–139. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.1997.1504
Gandomi AH, Fridline MM, Roke DA (2013) Decision tree approach for soil liquefaction assessment. Scient World J
Ge D-M, Zhao L-C, Esmaeili-Falak M (2023) Estimation of rapid chloride permeability of SCC using hyperparameters optimized random forest models. J Sustain Cement-Based Mater 12:542–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650373.2022.2093291
Geurts P, Ernst D, Wehenkel L (2006) Extremely randomized trees. Mach Learn 63:3–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1
Ghani S, Kumari S (2022a) Liquefaction behavior of Indo-Gangetic region using novel metaheuristic optimization algorithms coupled with artificial neural network. Nat Hazards 111:2995–3029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-05165-y
Ghani S, Kumari S (2022b) Reliability analysis for liquefaction risk assessment for the City of Patna, India using hybrid computational modeling. J Geol Soc India 98:1395–1406
Ghani S, Kumari S, Ahmad S (2022) Prediction of the seismic effect on liquefaction behavior of fine-grained soils using artificial intelligence-based hybridized modeling. Arab J Sci Eng 47:5411–5441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-022-06697-6
Ghani S, Kumari S (2021) Effect of plasticity index on liquefaction behavior of silty clay, In: Sitharam TG, Dinesh SV, Jakka R (Eds.), soil dynamics, lecture notes in civil engineering. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp. 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4001-5_26
Golmoghani Ebrahimi S, Noorzad A, Kupaei HJ (2023) Reliability analysis of soil liquefaction using improved hypercube sampling (IHS) method. Int J Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-023-00863-z
Gong Y, Liu G, Xue Y, Li R, Meng L (2023) A survey on dataset quality in machine learning. Inf Softw Technol 162:107268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107268
Hanna AM, Ural D, Saygili G (2007) Neural network model for liquefaction potential in soil deposits using Turkey and Taiwan earthquake data. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:521–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.11.001
Hoang N-D, Bui DT (2018) Predicting earthquake-induced soil liquefaction based on a hybridization of kernel Fisher discriminant analysis and a least squares support vector machine: a multi-dataset study. Bull Eng Geol Environ 77:191–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0924-0
Holland JH (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. MIT press
Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2008) Soil liquefaction during earthquakes (Monograph No. MNO-12). Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA
Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures (No. UCD/CGM-10/02). Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California at Davis.
Ishihara K (1984) Post-earthquake failure of a tailings dam due to liquefaction of the pond deposits. Proceeding of International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. University of Missouri, St. Louis, pp 1129–1143
Ishihara K (1996) Soil Behaviour in Earthquake Geotechnics, 1st edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Ishihara K (1985) Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A. Balkema. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 321–376
Jalal FE, Xu Y, Iqbal M, Jamhiri B, Javed MF (2021) Predicting the compaction characteristics of expansive soils using two genetic programming-based algorithms. Transport Geotechn 30:100608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100608
Janizadeh S, Vafakhah M, Kapelan Z, Mobarghaee Dinan N (2022) Hybrid XGboost model with various Bayesian hyperparameter optimization algorithms for flood hazard susceptibility modeling. Geocarto Int 37:8273–8292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2021.1996641
Jha SK, Suzuki K (2009) Reliability analysis of soil liquefaction based on standard penetration test. Comput Geotech 36:589–596
Johari A, Javadi AA, Makiabadi MH, Khodaparast AR (2012) Reliability assessment of liquefaction potential using the jointly distributed random variables method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 38:81–87
Juang C, Fang S, Tang W, Khor E, Kung GT-C, Zhang J (2009) Evaluating model uncertainty of an SPT-based simplified method for reliability analysis for probability of liquefaction. Soils Found 49:135–152
Juang CH, Gong W, Wasowski J (2022) Trending topics of significance in engineering geology. Eng Geol 296:106460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106460
Kayadelen C (2011) Soil liquefaction modeling by genetic expression programming and neuro-fuzzy. Expert Syst Appl 38:4080–4087
Ke G, Meng Q, Finley T, Wang T, Chen W, Ma W, Ye Q, Liu T-Y (2017) Lightgbm: a highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 30:3146–3154
Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, Inc
Kumar D, Samui P, Kim D, Singh A (2021) A novel methodology to classify soil liquefaction using deep learning. Geotech Geol Eng 39:1049–1058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01544-7
Kumar DR, Samui P, Burman A (2022) Prediction of probability of liquefaction using soft computing techniques. J Inst Eng India Ser A 103:1195–1208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-022-00683-9
Kummer AF, de Araújo OCB, Buriol LS, Resende MGC (2023) A biased random-key genetic algorithm for the home health care problem. Int Trans Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13221
Kurnaz TF, Kaya Y (2019) A novel ensemble model based on GMDH-type neural network for the prediction of CPT-based soil liquefaction. Environ Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8344-7
Kurnaz TF, Erden C, Kökçam AH, Dağdeviren U, Demir AS (2023) A hyper parameterized artificial neural network approach for prediction of the factor of safety against liquefaction. Eng Geol 319:107109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2023.107109
Kwak BM, Lee TW (1987) Sensitivity analysis for reliability-based optimization using an AFOSM method. Comput Struct 27:399–406
Law KT, Wang J (1994) Siting in earthquake zones. A.A. Balkema/Rotterdam/Brookfield
Li Y, Rahardjo H, Satyanaga A, Rangarajan S, Lee DT-T (2022) Soil database development with the application of machine learning methods in soil properties prediction. Eng Geol 306:106769
Lim Y (2022) State-of-the-Art Machine Learning Hyperparameter Optimization with Optuna [WWW Document]. Medium. URL https://towardsdatascience.com/state-of-the-art-machine-learning-hyperparameter-optimization-with-optuna-a315d8564de1 (accessed 5.25.23).
Mienye ID, Sun Y (2022) A survey of ensemble learning: concepts, algorithms, applications, and prospects. IEEE Access 10:99129–99149. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3207287
Mughieda O, Bani-Hani K, Safieh B (2009) Liquefaction assessment by artificial neural networks based on CPT. Int J Geotech Eng 3:289–302. https://doi.org/10.3328/IJGE.2009.03.02.289-302
Ozsagir M, Erden C, Bol E, Sert S, Özocak A (2022) Machine learning approaches for prediction of fine-grained soils liquefaction. Comput Geotech 152:105014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.105014
Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M, Duchesnay E (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830
Pei X, Mei F, Gu J, Chen Z (2022) Research on real-time state identification model of electricity-heat system considering unbalanced data, In: 2022 IEEE 5th International Conference on Electronics Technology (ICET). Presented at the 2022 IEEE 5th International Conference on Electronics Technology (ICET), pp. 501–505. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICET55676.2022.9824069
Pham TA (2021) Application of feedforward neural network and SPT results in the estimation of seismic soil liquefaction triggering. Comput Intellig Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1058825
Rahbarzare A, Azadi M (2019) Improving prediction of soil liquefaction using hybrid optimization algorithms and a fuzzy support vector machine. Bull Eng Geol Env 78:4977–4987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-018-01445-3
Rahman MS, Wang J (2002) Fuzzy neural network models for liquefaction prediction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:685–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00059-3
Rajasekar V, Krishnamoorthi S, Saračević M, Pepic D, Zajmovic M, Zogic H (2022) Ensemble machine learning methods to predict the balancing of ayurvedic constituents in the human body: ensemble machine learning methods to predict. Comput Sci. https://doi.org/10.7494/csci.2022.23.1.4315
Ramakrishnan D, Singh TN, Purwar N, Barde KS, Gulati A, Gupta S (2008) Artificial neural network and liquefaction susceptibility assessment: a case study using the 2001 Bhuj earthquake data, Gujarat, India. Comput Geosci 12:491–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-008-9088-8
Rehman ZU, Khalid U, Ijaz N, Mujtaba H, Haider A, Farooq K, Ijaz Z (2022) Machine learning-based intelligent modeling of hydraulic conductivity of sandy soils considering a wide range of grain sizes. Eng Geol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106899
Samui P, Karthikeyan J (2013) Determination of liquefaction susceptibility of soil: a least square support vector machine approach. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 37:1154–1161. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2081
Samui P, Sitharam TG (2011) Machine learning modelling for predicting soil liquefaction susceptibility. Nat Hazard 11:1–9. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-1-2011
Sari SA, Maki WFA (2023) Masked Face Images Based Gender Classification using Hybrid Bat Algorithm Optimized Bagging, In: 2023 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Information and Communication (ICAIIC). Presented at the 2023 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Information and Communication (ICAIIC), pp. 091–096. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAIIC57133.2023.10067008
Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss RE, Kammerer AM, Wu J, Pestana JM, Riemer MF, Sancio RB, Bray JD, Kayen RE (2003) Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent framework, In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar: Long Beach, CA
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mechan Found Div 97:1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662
Sharma R, Kodamana H, Ramteke M (2022) Multi-objective dynamic optimization of hybrid renewable energy systems. Chem Eng Process Intens 170:108663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2021.108663
Umar SK, Kumari S, Samui P, Kumar D (2022) A liquefaction study using ENN, CA, and biogeography optimized-based ANFIS technique. Int J Appl Metaheuristic Comput (IJAMC) 13:1–23. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAMC.290535
Walia MS (2021) Best boosting algorithm in machine learning In: 2021. Analytics Vidhya. URL https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2021/04/best-boosting-algorithm-in-machine-learning-in-2021/ (Accessed 5.25.23)
Wang Y, Tang H, Huang J, Wen T, Ma J, Zhang J (2022) A comparative study of different machine learning methods for reservoir landslide displacement prediction. Eng Geol 298:106544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106544
Xue X, Liu E (2017) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. Environ Earth Sci 76:192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6523-y
Xue X, Xiao M (2016) Application of genetic algorithm-based support vector machines for prediction of soil liquefaction. Environ Earth Sci 75:874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5673-7
Xue X, Yang X (2013) Application of the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for prediction of soil liquefaction. Nat Hazards 67:901–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0615-0
Xue X, Yang X (2016) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by support vector machines approaches. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:153–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-015-0741-x
Yegian MK, Ghahraman VG, Harutiunyan RN (1994) Liquefaction and embankment failure case histories, 1988 Armenia earthquake. J Geotechn Eng 120:581–596
Yılmaz F, Öztürkoğlu Ş, Kamiloğlu HA (2022) A hybrid approach for computational determination of liquefaction potential of Erzurum City Center based on SPT data using response surface methodology. Arab J Geosci 15:95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-09312-4
Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Finn WDL, Harder LF, Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Liao SSC, Marcuson WF, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe KH (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 127:817–833. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817)
Youd TL, Idriss IM (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 127:297–313
Zhang J, Wang Y (2021) An ensemble method to improve prediction of earthquake-induced soil liquefaction: a multi-dataset study. Neural Comput Appl 33:1533–1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05084-2
Zhang Y, Qiu J, Zhang Y, Xie Y (2021) The adoption of a support vector machine optimized by GWO to the prediction of soil liquefaction. Environ Earth Sci 80:360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-09648-w
Zhao Z, Duan W, Cai G (2021) A novel PSO-KELM based soil liquefaction potential evaluation system using CPT and Vs measurements. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 150:106930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106930
Zhou J, Huang S, Wang M, Qiu Y (2022a) Performance evaluation of hybrid GA–SVM and GWO–SVM models to predict earthquake-induced liquefaction potential of soil: a multi-dataset investigation. Eng Comput 38:4197–4215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01418-3
Zhou J, Huang S, Zhou T, Armaghani DJ, Qiu Y (2022b) Employing a genetic algorithm and grey wolf optimizer for optimizing RF models to evaluate soil liquefaction potential. Artif Intell Rev 55:5673–5705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10140-5
Funding
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Alparslan Serhat Demir: methodology, writing—original draft, supervision. Talas Fikret Kurnaz: data collection, conceptualization, resources, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, supervision. Abdullah Hulusi Kökçam: methodology, writing—original draft, formal analysis, visualization, validation. Caner Erden: methodology, writing—review and editing, software, data curation, visualization, validation. Uğur Dağdeviren: data collection, conceptualization, resources, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Demir, A.S., Kurnaz, T.F., Kökçam, A.H. et al. A comparative analysis of ensemble learning algorithms with hyperparameter optimization for soil liquefaction prediction. Environ Earth Sci 83, 289 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-024-11600-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-024-11600-7