Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems With Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Review

A comprehensive review of slope stability analysis based on artificial

intelligence methods
Wei Gao *, Shuangshuang Ge
Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics and Embankment Engineering, College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hohai University, 1 Xikang
Road, Nanjing 210098, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: For preventing landslide disasters caused by the slope collapse, it is crucial to research on the investigation of
Landslide slope stability. For the very complex influence factors on the slope stability, nowadays, the studies on slope
Slope stability stability by using the artificial intelligence methods have become the hot topic, and there have been numerous
Artificial intelligence method
related works in this field. In this study, according to the essential difference, the studies in this field are divided
Evaluation
into two main types (computation of slope stability and evaluation of slope stability), from which, the numerous
Research advancement
previous studies have been reviewed comprehensively. For the studies on slope stability computation, according
to the used artificial intelligence methods, the studies in this field are reviewed from four aspects: studies by
quasi-physical intelligence methods, studies by simulated evolutionary methods, studies by swarm intelligence
methods, and ones by hybrid intelligence methods. And from the used artificial intelligence methods too, the
studies on slope stability evaluation are also reviewed from four aspects: studies by artificial neural network
methods, studies by vector machine methods, ones using hybrid intelligence methods, and ones using other
intelligence methods. Moreover, the merits and demerits of those studies have been comprehensively analyzed,
and their state-of-the-art research advancement has also been summarized. At last, the possible research di­
rections of slope stability investigation based on artificial intelligence methods are also suggested.

1. Introduction
Slope is one geological body with lateral free surface on the earth
surface formed by a certain amount of rock and soil mass. Generally, by
the influence of natural or man-made factors, some rock and soil mass of
the slope will slide along a slip surface, which is called slope collapse
(Fig. 1).
Landslide caused by the slope collapse is a common geological
phenomenon on the earth surface, and it is also a critical natural hazard.
Each year, across the world, thousands of deaths and heavy economic
losses have been caused by the landslide accidents. To prevent slope
collapse, the important work is to judge whether the rock and soil mass
of slope will slide, that is, to analyze the slip tendency of rock and soil
mass, which is called analysis on slope stability. Thus, the slope stability
is used to describe the slip tendency of slope, which can be represented
by the slope stability index, that is, the magnitude of the slope stability
index can characterize the strength of the slip tendency of slope.
Therefore, the analysis on slope stability is of vital importance for pre­
venting the landslide disasters, and the slope stability investigation is
the long-standing hot research. Nowadays, there have been numerous
studies on the slope stability analysis, and there are many new studies
added each year. Especially, as the development of artificial intelli­
gence, the studies on the slope stability analysis based on the artificial
intelligence methods have developed very quickly, and become the hot
topic in this field. However, because the essence of some artificial in­
telligence methods is similar to some extent, there have been many
similar works on the slope stability analysis by the artificial intelligence
methods. Therefore, to prevent the similar or even repetitive works, and
promote the sound development of studies in this field, it is highly
crucial to conduct a comprehensive summary and deep analysis on the
numerous previous studies. However, only one so-called review study
(Mishra et al., 2019) is found. Actually, in this study, only some studies
based on the optimization methods in artificial intelligence have been
summarized simply in the introduction section, and the main work is to
propose new method using the antlion optimizer technique. Therefore,
actually, there is no review study on the slope stability analysis by the
artificial intelligence methods to be found currently. In order to sum­
marize and analyze the studies on the slope stability analysis based on

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wgaowh@163.com (W. Gao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122400
Received 4 April 2023; Received in revised form 18 July 2023; Accepted 29 October 2023
Available online 31 October 2023
0957-4174/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

points of slip surface which are on the slope surface.

For the circular slip surface (Fig. 2(a)), generally, it can be described
by three parameters (two coordinates of the circle center (XO, YO) and
the arc radius (R)). Thus, the search of circular critical slip surface can be
represented by one optimization problem as,
f = minF(XO , YO , R) (1)

where F is the computed FOS.

The constrain condition is,

R − YO ⩽H′ (2)

where H’ is the depth of lower hard layer.

For the non-circular slip surface (Fig. 2(b)), generally, it can be
Fig. 1. Slope collapse by river flow. described by the coordinates of controlling points (A0, A1, …, An-1, An)
on it, which are described as (x0, y0, x1, y1, …, xn-1, yn-1, xn, yn). Because
the artificial intelligence methods deeply and comprehensively, a two end points (A0 and An) are on the slope surface, y0 and yn can be
comprehensive review study has been conducted here to fill the research determined by x0 and xn based on the known function of slope surface.
gap. In this review, according to the essential difference, the studies in Therefore, the search for the non-circular critical slip surface has also
this field are divided into computation of slope stability and evaluation been represented by the optimization problem as,
of slope stability. And the computation of slope stability is a kind of f = minF(x0 , x1 , y1 , ..., xn− 1 , yn− 1 , xn ) (3)
theoretical study, in which, the slope stability index of the specific slope
can be computed directly by the theoretical method based on its basic The constrain condition is,
properties. However, the evaluation of slope stability is a kind of data- {
driven study, in which, the slope stability index of the specific slope x0 ⩽x1 ⩽x2 ...⩽xn− 1 ⩽xn
(4)
H′ < y1 ⩽y2 ...⩽yn− 1
will be estimated by the data-driven method based on the pre collected
data from the similar slopes. Therefore, the research methods for
Because searching critical slip surface of slope is a typical optimization
computation of slope stability and evaluation of slope stability are
problem, many traditional optimization methods have already been
completely different and their research bases are different too. The de­
used. Those methods include pattern search (Lefebvre, 1971), conjugate
tails are as follows,
gradient method (Arai and Tagyo, 1985), powell method (Chen and
For computation of slope stability, according to mechanical proper­
Shao, 1988; Yamagami and Ueta, 1988), simplex method (Chen and
ties and geological conditions of slope, the slope stability index, such as
Shao, 1988; Yamagami and Ueta, 1988), random method (Chen, 1992),
factor of safety (FOS) can be computed by the analytical or numerical
dynamic programming method (Yamagami and Jiang, 1997), and Monte
method. And, according to the computed FOS, the slope stability can be
Carlo method (Bai et al., 2014; Greco, 1996; Malkawi et al., 2001), etc.
analyzed. In this kind of studies, one important thing is to determine the
However, for the complicated characteristics of real slopes, the objective
critical slip surface of slope for which FOS is minimum (Cheng and Lau,
function of the optimization problem for searching critical slip surface of
2008). Generally, the slip surface of slope can be divided into two kinds,
slope is a very complicated non-linear multiple hump function for which
which are circular and non-circular slip surfaces (Fig. 2).
there are many local minima. And the traditional optimization methods
It must be noted that, in Fig. 2, the two typical models to describe
cannot solve it well (Cheng and Lau, 2008). Therefore, to solve this
circular and non-circular slip surfaces are provided. In Fig. 2(a), point O
problem well, the global optimization methods from the artificial in­
is the circle center of the circular slip surface, whose coordinate is (XO,
telligence technique have already been applied more and more, and
YO). R is the radius of circular arc. Points (M and L) are end points of slip
become the hot topic, which will be reviewed comprehensively in the
surface which are on the slope surface. H’ is the lower hard layer depth.
follow Section 2 of this review.
Point B is the deepest point of the slip surface, whose depth is R-YO.
For the evaluation of slope stability, from the influence factors of the
Moreover, in Fig. 2(b), Points (A0, A1, A2, …, Ai, …, An-1, An) are the
slope stability, the slope stability index (FOS, stability number, or sta
controlling points of the slip surface, and two points (A0 and An) are end

Fig. 2. Typical model of slip surface for slope.

2
W. Gao and S. Ge
bility status) can be determined using some geological classification
methods or engineering analogy methods based on the pre obtained data
sets about the slope stability of similar slopes. From the obtained slope
stability index, the slope stability can be estimated. For this kind of
studies, the most important thing is to construct the relationship be­
tween influence factors and slope stability index based on the collected
data sets. Generally, to construct this relationship, there are two main
kinds of methods, which are data classification or clustering and data
fitting. For the first kind, the traditional classification or clustering
methods have been applied widely, including rock mass classification
method (Daftaribesheli et al., 2011; Liu and Chen, 2007), rock engi­
neering system method (KhaloKakaie and Zare Naghadehi, 2012; Zare
Naghadehi et al., 2013), multicriteria decision-making approach (Liang
and Pensomboon, 2010), k-means method (Zakaria, 2016), fuzzy c-
means clustering algorithm (Zakaria, 2016), fuzzy evaluation method
(Leonardi et al., 2020), and self-adaptive clustering method (Xia and
Xiao, 2000), etc. And for the second kind, its essence is to construct a
function about the influence factors (f1, f2, f3, …, fn) whose number is n
and the slope stability index (Si), as
Si = function(f1 , f2 , ..., fn− 1 , fn ) (5)
Therefore, the traditional data regression methods have already been
applied widely in this field, such as multiple linear regression (Chak­
raborty and Goswami, 2017; Erzin and Cetin, 2013; Marrapu and Jakka,
2020), evolutionary polynomial regression (Ahangar-Asr et al., 2010),
multiple non-linear regression (Marrapu and Jakka, 2020), logistic
regression (Zhou et al., 2017), and multivariate adaptive regression
splines (Suman et al., 2016), etc. However, for the complicated char­
acteristics of real slopes, the relationship between influence factors and
slope stability index is very complex. And it is very difficult to build this
complex relationship by the traditional methods well, but the black box
model based on artificial intelligence methods can solve this problem
well. Therefore, the studies by using artificial intelligence methods have
also become the hot topic in this field, which will be reviewed
comprehensively in the follow Section 3 of this review.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 re­
views the studies of slope stability computation by artificial intelligence
methods. And section 3 reviews the studies of slope stability evaluation
by artificial intelligence methods. Finally, the main conclusions and
discussion of those studies are provided in Section 4.
2. Slope stability computation by artificial intelligence methods
In this kind of studies, the critical slip surface of slope has been
searched by the global optimization algorithms from the artificial in­
telligence methods, and the FOS can be computed by limit equilibrium
method, finite element method, and limit-analysis method, etc. How­
ever, because the limit equilibrium method can be applied simply and
easily, nowadays, it is the widely used one. The flow chart of this kinds
of studies can be summarized as shown in Fig. 3.
From Fig. 3, there are mainly three parts, which are description of
initial slip surface, computation of FOS, and selection slip surface with
minimum FOS. For the first part, different initial slip surfaces (circular
or non-circular ones) can be described by the different methods. For the
second part, the FOS of generated slip surfaces are computed by the
analytical or numerical methods. Finally, for the last one, the critical slip
surface has been searched by the artificial intelligence methods.
Therefore, in this kind of studies, the artificial intelligence methods are
only used in the third part.
According to the used artificial intelligence methods, this kind of
studies will be reviewed from four types, which are studies by simulated
evolutionary methods, studies by quasi-physical intelligence methods,
studies by swarm intelligence methods, and ones by hybrid intelligence
methods.
3
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
Fig. 3. Flow chart of slope stability computation by intelligence methods.
2.1. Studies by simulated evolutionary methods
The simulated evolutionary methods are a group of algorithms from
the simulation of natural evolution process. Generally, the simulated
evolutionary methods include four main kinds, which are genetic algo­
rithm, evolutionary strategy, evolutionary programming, and genetic
programming (Gao and Yin, 2011). Except for genetic programming, the
other three can be used as the global optimization algorithms. Therefore,
the simulated evolutionary methods have already been applied for
searching the critical slip surface of slope, and there have been many
studies in this field. In those studies, the used simulated evolutionary
methods include genetic algorithm and its variants, evolutionary pro­
gramming, differential evolution, and evolutionary strategy, etc. The
main studies in this filed are summarized in Table 1.
From Table 1, the genetic algorithm is the firstly and widely used
one. And most of the studies by the genetic algorithm are to determine
the non-circular critical slip surfaces of the two-dimensional slopes. In
those studies, the first study using genetic algorithm was conducted in
1999 (Goh, 1999). In this study, the critical slip surface which is a
polygonal line (Fig. 4) has been determined by simple genetic algorithm
with binary coding. According to the polygonal line slip surface which is
a simple non-circular slip surface, the slip surface was simply described
by the coordinates of controlling points, and the multiple-wedge method
was used to compute the FOS.
It must be noted that, in Fig. 4, the model to describe polygonal line
non-circular slip surface and sliding body composed by multiple-wedge
is provided. As shown in Fig. 4, the sliding body of slope is composed by
three wedges, which are N1N2CBA, CN2N3D, and DN3N4E. N1 to N4 are
the four controlling points of the slip surface, in which, N1 and N4 are
two end points on the slope surface. A, B, and E are points describe the
geometry of slope surface. C and D are intersections between wedge side
and slope surface.
Different from above study, the simple genetic algorithm has also
been applied to determine the general non-circular critical slip surface
(Bhandary et al., 2019; Cheng et al., 2007a; Farshidfar et al., 2020;
Gandomi et al., 2017; Li et al., 2010; Sabhahit and Rao, 2011; Sun et al.,
2008; Zolfaghari et al., 2005). It should be noted that, in those studies, to
improve the basic method of description non-circular slip surface
(shown in Fig. 2(b)), two typical methods for description non-circular
slip surface have been proposed (Cheng et al., 2007a; Zolfaghari et al.,
2005). For two typical methods, the widely used one is that proposed by
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

Table 1
Summary of studies by the simulated evolutionary methods.
Algorithm Type of critical slip surface Method to compute FOS Type of study Citation

genetic algorithm non-circular slip surface
circular slip surface
circular slip surface
non-circular slip surface
non-circular slip surface
non-circular slip surface
circular slip surface
non-circular slip surface
non-circular slip surface
non-circular slip surface
non-circular slip surface
circular slip surface
circular slip surface
non-circular slip surface
curvilinear cone (horn) slip surface
rotational ellipsoid slip surface
improved genetic non-circular slip surface
algorithm
ellipsoidal slip surface
circular slip surface, non-circular slip
surface, ellipsoidal slip surface
evolutionary non-circular slip surface
programming
differential evolution non-circular slip surface
evolutionary strategy non-circular slip surface
multiple-wedge method
Bishop’s modified method
Bishop’s simplified method
Morgenstern-Price method
Spencer method
Spencer method
Fellenius method
Morgenstern-Price method, finite
element method
Janbu method
Morgenstern-Price method
finite element method
Bishop, Fellenius, Janbu, and Janbu
corrected methods
Fellenius method
horizontal slice method
kinematic limit analysis method and
energy balance equation
minimum potential energy principle
Spencer method
three-dimensional rigorous limit
equilibrium method
random forest regression method
Morgenstern-Price method, Spencer
method
Morgenstern-Price method
Morgenstern-Price method
two published and one designed soil Goh, 1999
slope cases
four published and one designed soil Goh, 2000
slope cases
a designed reinforced soil slope McCombie and
Wilkinson, 2002
two natural and two designed slopes Zolfaghari et al., 2005
six published soil slope cases Cheng et al., 2007a
three published soil slope cases Sun et al., 2008
a designed soil slope case Sengupta and
Upadhyay, 2009
six published soil slope cases Li et al., 2010
two published soil slope cases Sabhahit and Rao, 2011
three published soil slope cases Gandomi et al., 2017
three published soil slope cases Bhandary et al., 2019
three published soil slope cases Singh et al., 2019a
one published soil slope case Bhattacharjya, 2020
a designed reinforced soil slope case Farshidfar et al., 2020
one designed three-dimensional soil Li et al., 2022
slope case
two published slope cases and a real Sun et al., 2022b
landslide
two published soil slope cases and a Pina and Jimenez, 2015
real bridge abutment
two designed soil slope cases Zhou et al., 2020
four published slope cases Xu and Zhou, 2022
four published soil slope cases Gao, 2015b
three published soil slope cases Gandomi et al., 2017
three published soil slope cases Gandomi et al., 2017

Cheng et al. (2007a). In this method, the non-circular slip surface has
been described by partial coordinates of controlling points and angles
between slip surface and horizontal line on the controlling points, and
the straight line is used between adjacent two controlling points, as
shown in Fig. 5.
It must be noted that, in Fig. 5, the model to describe non-circular
slip surface by its controlling points and angles between slip surface
and horizontal line on the controlling points is provided. And in this
figure, A0 to An are controlling points on the slip surface, and α0 to αn− 1
are the angles between slip surface represented by the straight line be­
tween adjacent two controlling points and horizontal line on the con­
trolling points.
Moreover, the horizontal distance between A0 and An was simply
divided into equal segments, and thus, the x-coordinates of the con­
trolling points can be determined easily and are not the variables except
for A0 and An. Therefore, the equation (3) will be changed to
f = minF(x0 , y1 , y2 , ..., yn− 1 , xn )
And, to guarantee the generated slip surface is admissible, the kine­
matically acceptable requirement is used, which can be described by
constrain conditions about the angles between slip surface and hori­
zontal line on the controlling points. Therefore, the equation (4) will be
changed to
{ studies (Cheng et al., 2007a; Farshidfar et al., 2020; Gandomi et al.,
α0 ⩽α1 ⩽α2 ...⩽αn− 1
(7)
H′ < y1 ⩽y2 ...⩽yn− 1
At last, to improve the searching efficiency, the dynamic bounds for the
controlling variables have been applied (Fig. 6). The details can be found
in the reference (Cheng et al., 2007a).
It must be noted that, in Fig. 6, the method to generate the dynamic
searching bounds for the y-coordinates of the controlling points of the
slip surface is provided. In Fig. 6, A0 to An are the controlling points of
the slip surface whose x-ordinates are x0 to xn. H is the intersection point
of the extension line between A0 and A1 and the line x = x2. G is the
intersection point of the line between A1 and An and the line x = x2. yi,min
and yi,max are the searching ranges for the y-ordinates of controlling
point i which are the y-ordinates of above two intersection points if they
do not exceed bed rock surface and slope surface, otherwise they are two
intersection points of line x = x2 or bed rock surface or slope surface.
Another typical method is proposed by Zolfaghari et al. (2005). In
this method, the change of slip surface has been described by angular
difference for the angle between slip surface and vertical line, as shown
in Fig. 7. Moreover, to start with a sufficient population, 11 different
categories of angular difference range are defined, whose details can be
found in reference (Zolfaghari et al., 2005).
It must be noted that, in Fig. 7, the model to describe non-circular
slip surface by its controlling points and angles between slip surface
and vertical line is provided. In Fig. 7, β is the slope angle. αi is the small
angle between slip surface and horizontal line. αfi is the small angle
(6)
between slip surface and vertical line. αhi is the large angle between slip
surface and horizontal line. Δαfi is the difference between small angles of
two adjacent slip surface and vertical line.
In those studies, the typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) and its
variants have been applied to describe non-circular slip surfaces for most
studies except one (Zolfaghari et al., 2005). For example, for three
2017), the typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) was applied to describe
non-circular slip surface, whose FOS was computed by different
methods, such as Morgenstern-Price method, horizontal slice method,
and Spencer method, respectively. In the study (Sun et al., 2008), to
generate non-circular slip surfaces, one variant in which the spline curve
was used to connect the adjacent two controlling points of the slip
surface was proposed, and the corresponding FOS was computed by
Spencer method. And in two studies (Bhandary et al., 2019; Sabhahit

4
W. Gao and S. Ge
Fig. 4. Polygonal line non-circular slip surface.
Fig. 5. Non-circular slip surface model.
and Rao, 2011), another variant was proposed in which one penalty
function was used to replace the dynamic bounds of controlling vari­
ables, but different methods were used to compute the FOS, which were
finite element method and Janbu method, respectively. However, in the
study (Li et al., 2010), the genetic algorithm with real-code was applied
to search non-circular critical slip surface, and the variant proposed by
Sun et al. (2008) was used to describe the slip surface whose FOS was
computed by Morgenstern-Price method and finite element method.
And, in the study (Zolfaghari et al., 2005), to compute the FOS, the
Morgenstern-Price method was applied, and simple genetic algorithm
was also applied to solve the functions of Morgenstern-Price method.
Moreover, the simple genetic algorithm was also been applied to
determine the circular critical slip surface of soil slope (Bhattacharjya,
2020; Goh, 2000; McCombie and Wilkinson, 2002; Sengupta and
Upadhyay, 2009; Singh et al., 2019a). In those studies, the basic method
(Fig. 2(a)) was applied to describe circular slip surface. However, to
compute its corresponding FOS, the different methods have been used,
such as Bishop’s method (Goh, 2000; McCombie and Wilkinson, 2002;
Singh et al., 2019a), Fellenius method (Bhattacharjya, 2020; Sengupta
and Upadhyay, 2009; Singh et al., 2019a), Janbu and Janbu corrected
method (Singh et al., 2019a). Different from above studies, currently,
the genetic algorithm has been used to determine the three-dimensional
slip surface of slope (Li et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022b). For the first one,
the three-dimensional slip surface of inhomogeneous slope in unsatu­
rated soils under one dimensional steady flow, which is a curvilinear
cone (horn), is generated by rotating a circle with an increasing radius
that was determined by two log spiral curves about an axis through the
rotation center. And the three-dimensional slip surface can be repre­
sented by five parameters (including the initial rotational angle, final
rotational angle of log spiral, ratio of the radii of the two log spiral
curves when the polar angle that rotates clockwise from the horizontal
direction is the initial rotational angle, ratio of auxiliary height of slope
to the slope height, ratio of auxiliary slope inclination angle to the slope
inclination angle). Moreover, the FOS of the three-dimensional slope
was computed by the kinematic limit analysis method with the energy
balance equation. For the second one, the three-dimensional slip surface
5
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
Fig. 6. Dynamic bound method for controlling variables.
of soil slope is one rotational ellipsoid which is represented by six pa­
rameters (radii in three directions, the angle between the radius in the x
direction and the x axis, x coordinates of two end vertices). However, the
sliding direction representing the FOS was computed by the minimum
potential energy principle, and the maximum sliding direction can
determine the critical slip surface.
Apart from the simple genetic algorithm, some variants of genetic
algorithms have also been used. For example, to improve the genetic
algorithm, the custom operators (including heuristic crossover, arith­
metic crossover, total non-uniform mutation, straight mutation, para­
bolic mutation, ‘extreme vertices’ mutation, random lumped mutation,
uniform and non-uniform mutation of single nodes, and straight lumped
mutation) have been applied, and a new variant of genetic algorithm
was proposed to determine the non-circular critical slip surface of soil
slope (Pina and Jimenez, 2015). In this study, the typical method (Cheng
et al., 2007a) was applied to describe the non-circular slip surface,
whose FOS was computed by Spencer method. Moreover, to search the
complicated three-dimensional ellipsoidal critical slip surface of slope, a
new improved genetic algorithm has been proposed (Zhou et al., 2020),
in which, the genetic recombination between previous generation and
newly generated population around its local optimal individual is per­
formed. In this study, the three-dimensional rigorous limit equilibrium
method was used to compute FOS, and the ellipsoidal slip surface is
determined by four parameters (two coordinates of the center of sphere
and lengths of two half axis). Different from above studies, currently, a
new method has been proposed to determine all types of critical slip
surfaces for slopes (including circular critical slip surface, non-circular
critical slip surface, and ellipsoidal critical slip surface) (Xu and Zhou,
2022). In this study, for the circular slip surface described by the basic
method (Fig. 2(a)), the simplified Bishop method is used to compute its
FOS. For the non-circular slip surface generated by the typical method
(Cheng et al., 2007a), the corresponding FOS was computed by
Morgenstern-Price method. And for the ellipsoidal slip surface described
by two coordinates of the center of sphere and lengths of two half axis,
the three-dimensional limit equilibrium method was applied to
computed its FOS. Based on the computed FOS and the corresponding
slip surface, the random forest regression method was used to build the
relationship between them. Moreover, based on the constructed random
forest model, the improved quantum genetic algorithm was applied to
identify the critical slip surface. And in the new improved quantum
genetic algorithm, the quantum coding, quantum rotating gate, and a
designed penalty function have been used to improve the genetic
algorithm.
Moreover, some other simulated evolutionary methods have been
applied too. For example, evolutionary programming has been applied
to determine the non-circular critical slip surface of complicated soil
slope (Gao, 2015b). In this study, the similar method of Sabhahit and
Rao (2011) was applied to describe the non-circular slip surface. For
comparison, two methods (Morgenstern-Price method and Spencer
method) have been applied to compute FOS. Moreover, the differential
W. Gao and S. Ge
Fig. 7. Method to describe non-circular slip surface.
evolution and evolutionary strategy were also applied to determine the
non-circular critical slip surface of complicated soil slopes (Gandomi
et al., 2017). In this study, the non-circular slip surface was described by
the typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) and its corresponding FOS was
computed by the Morgenstern-Price method.
In above studies, different simulated evolutionary methods have
been applied to determine different types of critical slip surface (circular
or non-circular ones) of the slopes. And most of them searched the two-
dimensional non-circular critical slip surface except three which studied
the three-dimensional non-circular critical slip surfaces, and almost all
used limit equilibrium method to compute FOS except one which used
the finite element method. It must be noted that, the three-dimensional
non-circular slip surface cannot be described easily and it is a hard work
to compute the FOS of the three-dimensional slope. Therefore, the three-
dimensional slope has been studied seldom. Moreover, it is not an easy
work to combine finite element method with the optimization method,
and thus, most of the studies used limit equilibrium method to compute
FOS. Because the essence of the simulated evolutionary methods is same
which is an intelligent optimization method and the essence of searching
the different types of critical slip surfaces of the two-dimensional slopes
is also same which is a complicated multi parameter optimization, the
main difference of those studies is the method to describe the slip sur­
face. However, because the basic model of description the non-circular
slip surface (Fig. 2(b)) cannot guarantee the feasibility of the slip sur­
face, actually, the basic model (Fig. 2(b)) has been used seldom. In those
studies, one important contribution is the proposed typical methods
(Cheng et al., 2007a; Zolfaghari et al., 2005) to describe the non-circular
slip surface. In the typical methods, some mechanical and geometric
constraint conditions have been used to restrict the generated slip sur­
faces. And using the typical methods, the feasible non-circular slip sur­
faces can be generated easily. Therefore, the typical methods have
become the general method, and have already been used in other
studies. Because the method proposed by Zolfaghari et al. (2005) is
slightly complicated than another method (Cheng et al., 2007a), the
typical method proposed by Cheng et al. (2007a) has been widely used
and that by Zolfaghari et al. (2005) has only been used in few works.
However, for used many constraint conditions, the application of typical
method (Cheng et al., 2007a) is a little inconvenient. To improve it, two
new variants of typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) have been pro­
posed. For the first one, to generate the smooth curve of slip surface, the
spline line is used to connect the adjacent two controlling points. But it is
more complex and cannot be applied easily. And for the second one, one
penalty function is used to replace the dynamic bounds of controlling
variables. But it is a hard work to select the suitable penalty function.
Therefore, those variants have not been used in other works. Another
6
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
important contribution of those studies is the three-dimensional slip
surface of the slope has been studied, which can be represented by
different shapes, such as ellipsoidal, curvilinear cone, and rotational
ellipsoid. Although the three-dimensional slip surfaces are simply
located by some parameters, it has made a beneficial trial to solve the
stability of real three-dimensional slope engineering. Moreover, one new
method to compute the stability of three-dimensional slope has been
applied, in which, the maximum sliding direction is used to represent
the FOS of critical slip surface and that can be computed by the mini­
mum potential energy principle easily. This new method can be used
more suitably for three-dimensional slope than traditional limit equi­
librium method. Therefore, it can be taken as one contribution. At last,
because the main works in those studies is the proposed method to
search critical slip surface, all studies use the published and designed
slope cases to compare with other works. However, the real slope cases
have also been used in few studies (Pina & Jimenez, 2015; Sun et al.,
2022b; Zolfaghari et al., 2005), which are a landslide, a bridge abut­
ment, and a natural slope.
2.2. Studies by quasi-physical intelligence methods
The quasi-physical intelligence method is one kind of global opti­
mization algorithm from the simulation of physical phenomena in na­
ture. Nowadays, to determine the critical slip surface of slope, many
quasi-physical intelligence methods have already been applied. Those
methods include harmony search algorithm, gravitational search algo­
rithm, black hole algorithm, simulated annealing algorithm, tabu
search, flower pollination algorithm, mutative scale chaos optimization
algorithm, electromagnetism-like algorithm, fireworks algorithm, mul­
tiverse optimization algorithm, big-bang big-crunch optimization, and
equilibrium optimization algorithm, etc. The main studies in this field
have been summarized as in Table 2.
In Table 2, the harmony search algorithm and its variants are the
most used ones. The harmony search algorithm is one quasi-physical
intelligent method to simulate the musical process of searching for
perfect state of harmony (Geem et al., 2001). The harmony search al­
gorithm was firstly applied in 2007 (Cheng et al., 2007a). And, the
studies using harmony search algorithm are mainly conducted by Cheng
and his collaborators (Cheng et al., 2007a; Li et al., 2013). Moreover, to
improve applications of original harmony search algorithm, some
improved harmony search algorithms have been proposed. Those vari­
ants include improved harmony search algorithm with rearrangement
and probabilities (Cheng, 2009; Cheng et al., 2007a; Cheng et al.,
2008b) and improved harmony search algorithm with dynamic adap­
tation (Lu et al., 2010). In above studies using the harmony search
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

algorithm and its variants, the non-circular critical slip surfaces were
searched and the limit equilibrium method (Morgenstern-Price method
or Spencer method) is used to compute FOS except one in which the
critical slip field method is used (Li et al., 2013). And in those studies,
the typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) has been used to describe the
slip surface.
Another used more quasi-physical intelligent method is simulated
annealing algorithm to simulate the very slow cooling process of heated
metal, called annealing, which is a good global optimization algorithm
(Kirkpatrick et al., 1983). In the studies using simulated annealing al­
gorithm, to describe the non-circular slip surface, the typical method
(Cheng et al., 2007a) was used. And in two studies (Bai et al., 2019;
Cheng et al., 2007a), the simulated annealing algorithm was applied to
search the critical slip surface whose FOS was computed by
Morgenstern-Price method and Spencer method, respectively. However,
in another study (Cheng, 2007), a variant with dynamic bounds and
Dirac function was used to search the critical slip surface, but the
method to compute FOS was not given.
Gravitational search algorithm and its variant are also used to search
critical slip surface of slopes. This algorithm is to simulate the mass
motion based on the law of gravity and their interactions (Rashedi et al.,
2009), which is firstly applied in 2011 (Khajehzadeh et al., 2011). And,
to improve the original gravitational search algorithm, one modified
gravitational search algorithm which used an adaptive maximum ve­
locity constraint has been proposed for searching the critical slip surface
of slope (Khajehzadeh et al., 2012a). In those studies, the typical method
(Cheng et al., 2007a) was applied to describe the non-circular slip sur­
face, whose FOS was computed by Morgenstern-Price method. However,
the gravitational search algorithm has also been applied to search cir­
cular slip surface, which is described by basic model (Fig. 2(a)) (Singh
et al., 2018a). And in this study, the FOS was computed by Fellenius
method.
In 2016, one quasi-physical intelligent method called black hole al­
gorithm which simulates black hole phenomena in universe (Hatamlou,
2013) has been used to determine the non-circular critical slip surface of
soil slopes (Gao et al., 2016). And, to improve the original black hole
algorithm, one new improved black hole algorithm with immunized
selection operation has been proposed (Gao, 2017). In those studies, the
FOS is computed by Morgenstern-Price method and Spencer method,
and one variant of typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) without the
dynamic bounds condition is applied to describe the non-circular slip
surface.
Tabu search is another quasi-physical intelligent method (Glover,
1989), which uses the prohibition-based techniques and intelligent

Table 2
Summary of studies by quasi-physical intelligence methods.
Algorithm Type of critical slip Method to compute FOS Type of study Citation
surface

harmony search algorithm non-circular slip Spencer method six published soil slope cases Cheng et al., 2007a
surface
non-circular slip critical slip field method three published soil slope cases Li et al., 2013
surface
improved harmony search algorithm non-circular slip Spencer method six published soil slope cases Cheng et al., 2007a
surface
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method five published soil slope cases Cheng et al., 2008b
surface
non-circular slip Spencer method four designed soil slope cases with a soft thin Cheng, 2009
surface band of soil
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method one published soil slope case Lu et al., 2010
surface
simulated annealing algorithm non-circular slip Spencer method six published soil slope cases Cheng et al., 2007a
surface
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method two soil slope cases (one published and one Bai et al., 2019
surface designed)
improved simulated annealing non-circular slip Not given eight designed soil slope cases Cheng, 2007
algorithm surface
gravitational search algorithm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Khajehzadeh et al.,
surface 2011
circular slip surface Fellenius method one published soil slope case Singh et al., 2018a
modified gravitational search non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method two published soil slope cases Khajehzadeh et al.,
algorithm surface 2012a
black hole algorithm non-circular slip Spencer method a real high embankment slope Gao et al., 2016
surface
non-circular slip Spencer method, Morgenstern-Price two published soil slope cases and one real Gao, 2017
surface method highway slope
improved black hole algorithm non-circular slip Spencer method, Morgenstern-Price two published soil slope cases and one real Gao, 2017
surface method highway slope
tabu search circular slip surface Bishop’s simplified method one designed slope case Han, 2003
non-circular slip Spencer method six published soil slope cases Cheng et al., 2007a
surface
modified electromagnetism-like circular slip surface Bishop’s simplified method two published soil slope cases Zhang and Cao, 2011
algorithm
big-bang big-crunch optimization circular slip surface Bishop’s simplified method one designed soil slope case Saha, 2013
mutative scale chaos optimization non-circular slip Spencer method four published soil slope cases Hu et al., 2015
algorithm surface
enhanced fireworks algorithm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Xiao et al., 2019
surface
multiverse optimization algorithm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method four published soil slope cases Mishra et al., 2020b
surface
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Li et al., 2022
surface
flower pollination algorithm circular slip surface Fellenius method one published soil slope case Singh et al., 2021
equilibrium optimization algorithm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Li et al., 2022
surface

7
W. Gao and S. Ge
schemes to improve the basic heuristic algorithms by guiding it beyond
local minima. It was firstly used to determine the circular critical slip
surface of slope in 2003 (Han, 2003). In this study, the circular slip
surface was described by basic model (Fig. 2(a)), whose FOS was
computed by Bishop’s simplified method. Moreover, in another study
(Cheng et al., 2007a), tabu search has been applied to determine the
non-circular critical slip surface of soil slopes, whose FOS was computed
by Spencer method.
In 2011, the electromagnetism-like algorithm which simulates the
attraction repulsion mechanism in electromagnetism theory (Birbil and
Fang, 2003) has been used to determine the circular critical slip surface
of soil slope (Zhang and Cao, 2011). However, in this study, the
improved electromagnetism-like algorithm with the predatory search
strategy has been proposed. To compute FOS, the Bishop’s simplified
method was used. However, in this study, the circular slip surface is
described by x-ordinates of two end points (XA, XB) of slip surface and
the arc height of slip surface (h) (Fig. 8), which is a variant of basic
model (Fig. 2(a)) and is a slightly simpler one.
It must be noted that, the model of description circular slip surface by
x-ordinates of two end points and the arc height of slip surface is pro­
vided in Fig. 8. Moreover, in Fig. 8, XA and XB are two end points of slip
surface on the slope surface. h is the maximum vertical distance from the
slip surface to the line between two end points of slip surface.
Big-bang big-crunch optimization algorithm is another quasi-
physical intelligence method from the theory of universe evolution
(Erol and Eksin, 2006). This algorithm has been applied to search the
circular critical slip surface of slope which is described by basic model
(Fig. 2(a)) (Saha, 2013). And Bishop’s simplified method was used to
compute FOS. In 2015 (Hu et al., 2015), another quasi-physical intelli­
gence method called mutative scale chaos optimization algorithm
(Zhang et al., 1999) which simulates the chaos phenomena of physics
has been applied to determine the non-circular critical slip surface of
slopes, whose FOS was computed by Spencer method. And to describe
non-circular slip surface, another variant of typical method (Cheng
et al., 2007a) has been proposed. In this variant, the static bounds for
each variable have been applied (Fig. 9) whose details can be found in
the reference (Hu et al., 2015).
It must be noted that, in Fig. 9, the method to generate the searching
bounds of the controlling points in the slip surface is provided. More­
over, in Fig. 9, N1 and N8 are end points of slip surface at the slope
surface. V1 to V6 are the equal-part points of the line between two points
(N1 and N8) whose number equals to the number of controlling points on
slip surface. Lines V1V′1 to V6V′6 are perpendicular to line N1N8, and the
selected points V′i lie beyond the locations of expected slip surfaces. γ1
and γ2 are minimum and maximum angles between the slip surface
passing the end point N8 and the line N1N8. β1 and β2 are minimum and
maximum angles between the slip surface passing the end point N1 and
the line N1N8. V6min and V6max are two intersections of slip surfaces with
the minimum and maximum angles and the line V6V′6. V1min and V1max
are two intersections of slip surfaces with the minimum and maximum
angles and the line V1V′1. V2min to V5min are intersections of line V1min­
V6min and the lines V2V′2 to V5V′5. V2max to V5max are intersections of line
Fig. 8. Description of circular slip surface.
8
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
V1maxV6max and the lines V2V′2 to V5V′5. N2 to N7 are the controlling
points on the slip surface, whose searching ranges are [V1min, V1max] to
[V6min, V6max].
As one quasi-physical intelligence method, fireworks algorithm is
proposed to emulate the phenomenon of fireworks explosions (Tan and
Zhu, 2010). In 2019 (Xiao et al., 2019), it has been applied to determine
the non-circular critical slip surface of soil slopes. However, in this
study, one improved fireworks algorithm with new Gaussian mutation
operator called enhanced fireworks algorithm has been applied. In this
study, the variant of the typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) without
the dynamic bounds condition has been applied to describe the non-
circular slip surface, whose FOS was computed by Morgenstern-Price
method. Moreover, one new quasi-physical intelligence method called
multiverse optimization algorithm has also been applied to determine
the non-circular critical slip surface of slope (Li et al., 2022; Mishra
et al., 2020b). The multiverse optimization algorithm was proposed to
mimic cosmological concepts of white holes, black holes, and worm­
holes (Mirjalili et al., 2016). In two studies using multiverse optimiza­
tion algorithm, the non-circular slip surfaces of complicated slopes are
described by the typical method (Zolfaghari et al., 2005) and another
typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a), and FOS of slopes have been
computed by Morgenstern-Price method.
In the study (Singh et al., 2021), the flower pollination algorithm,
which is a quasi-physical intelligence method to simulate the pollen
transmission performed by pollinators including wind or insects, bats,
birds, other animals (Yang, 2012), has been applied. As a simple study,
the circular critical slip surface of slope has been searched and the cir­
cular slip surface was described by the basic model (Fig. 2(a)) whose
corresponding FOS has been computed by Fellenius method.
The current study is the application of equilibrium optimization al­
gorithm to determine the non-circular critical slip surface (Li et al.,
2022). As one quasi-physical intelligence method, the equilibrium
optimization algorithm is inspired by control volume mass balance
models and is used to estimate both dynamic and equilibrium states
(Faramarzi et al., 2020). In this study, the non-circular slip surface of
complicated slope is described by the typical method (Zolfaghari et al.,
2005), and FOS of slope has been computed by Morgenstern-Price
method.
From above studies, the quasi-physical intelligence methods can be
applied to search the different types of critical slip surfaces (circular or
non-circular ones) of the two-dimensional slopes. Moreover, most of
them searched the non-circular critical slip surface whose FOS was
Fig. 9. Searching bounds for each variable.
W. Gao and S. Ge
computed by limit equilibrium method except one which used critical
slip field method to compute FOS. To describe the non-circular critical
slip surface, the typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) has been used
widely. Moreover, to use this method easily, its two variants have been
applied, which are the variant without the dynamic bounds condition
and one using the static bounds condition. For the first variant, because
one kind of constraint conditions has been abandoned, it can be used
easily, although the computing efficiency will be decreased. Because the
computing efficiency is generally not a key problem, this variant has
already been used in some works. For the second variant, because one
simple constraint condition is used, it can be used easily too. But its
result may be affected. Therefore, this variant has not be used in other
works. Moreover, to describe the circular slip surfaces, the basic model is
generally applied. But in those studies, one simple variant of basic model
has been proposed, which can be conducted slightly easily and is also
used in some other works. At last, because the main works in those
studies is also the proposed method to search critical slip surface, most
studies also use the published and designed slope cases to compare with
other works. However, the real slope cases are used in two studies (Gao
et al., 2016; Gao, 2017), which are a high embankment slope and a
highway slope.
2.3. Studies by swarm intelligence method
The swarm intelligence methods are from simulation the swarm
behavior of living things (Blum and Merkle, 2008), which are global
optimization methods too. Therefore, the swarm intelligence methods
have been used for searching the critical slip surface of slope for a long
time, and is still a hot topic in this field. Nowadays, the swarm intelli­
gence methods used to determine the critical slip surface of slope include
particle swarm optimization and its variants, ant colony optimization
and its variants, biogeography-based optimization algorithm, firefly
algorithm and its variants, cuckoo search and its variants, leapfrog al­
gorithm, artificial fish swarms algorithm, artificial bee colony algo­
rithm, levy flight krill herd algorithm, imperialistic competitive
algorithm, radial movement optimization algorithm, antlion optimiza­
tion algorithm, teaching–learning based optimization algorithm, whale
optimization algorithm, grey wolf optimization algorithm, leader dol­
phin herd algorithm, and salp swarm algorithm, etc. The main studies in
this field can be summarized as in Table 3.
From Table 3, the particle swarm optimization and its variants were
mostly used swarm intelligence methods in this filed. And the particle
swarm optimization is generally applied to search the non-circular
critical slip surface of slope (Cheng et al., 2007a; Gandomi et al. 2015;
Kashani et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022; Shinoda, 2015; Shinoda & Miyata,
2019; Tian et al., 2009). In those studies, the typical method (Cheng
et al., 2007a) and its variants have been used to describe the non-
circular slip surfaces for most studies exempt one (Li et al., 2022). For
example, typical method was used in four studies (Cheng et al., 2007a;
Cheng et al., 2007b; Gandomi et al., 2015; Kashani et al., 2021), in
which FOS was computed by different methods (including Spencer
method, Spencer method or Janbu simplified method, Morgenstern-
Price method, and Morgenstern-Price method or Spencer method,
respectively). In the study (Tian et al., 2009), one variant of typical
method in which the dynamic bounds condition has been abandoned
was used to describe the non-circular slip surface whose FOS was
computed by the finite element method. Moreover, in other two studies
(Shinoda, 2015; Shinoda and Miyata, 2019), to describe the non-circular
slip surface, another variant was applied in which the dynamic bounds
condition was replaced by the random slip surface generation method,
and the corresponding FOS was computed by Spencer method. Finally,
in the study (Li et al., 2022), the non-circular slip surface is described by
another typical method (Zolfaghari et al., 2005), and the corresponding
FOS has been computed by Morgenstern-Price method. Moreover, the
particle swarm optimization was also applied to determine the circular
critical slip surface of slopes (Chen et al., 2015; Himanshu and Burman,
9
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
2019; Kalatehjari et al., 2014; Sharma et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2019a).
In four studies (Chen et al., 2015; Himanshu and Burman, 2019; Sharma
et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2019a), the basic model (Fig. 2(a)) was used to
describe the circular slip surface whose FOS was computed by different
methods, which were the ordinary method of slices and simplified
Bishop method, Bishop method, and four limit equilibrium methods
(Bishop, Fellenius, Janbu, and Janbu corrected). However, in the study
(Kalatehjari et al., 2014), to describe the circular slip surface, one new
method was proposed for which circular slip surface was described by
the coordinates of three controlling points called triple-point method
(Fig. 10). And for comparison, two methods of Spencer and simplified
Bishop method are applied to compute FOS.
It must be noted that, in Fig. 10, the model to describe the circular
slip surface by triple-point method has been provided. And in this figure,
point O is the center of circle slip surface whose coordinates are XO and
YO. R is the radius of circle slip surface. xmin and xmax are minimum and
maximum values of x-coordinates for the end points of slip surface.
“point 1” and “point 2” are two end points of slip surface on the slope
surface whose x-coordinates are x1 and x2. “point 3” is the third point on
the slip surface whose x-coordinate is (x1 + x2)/2, and whose y-coor­
dinate is represented by d between dmin and dmax.
Finally, the particle swarm optimization was also applied to deter­
mine the three-dimensional critical slip surface of slope (Kalatehjari
et al., 2015). In this study, three-dimensional slip surface was described
by the rotating ellipsoid shape represented by four parameters (two
coordinates of the center of sphere and lengths of two half axis) and the
three-dimensional limit equilibrium method was applied to computed
FOS.
However, to improve the original particle swarm optimization, some
variants have been proposed to determine the non-circular critical slip
surface of complicated soil slopes (Cheng et al., 2007b; Himanshu et al.,
2020; Jellali and Frikha, 2017; Kashani et al., 2021; Khajehzadeh et al.,
2012b;). In three studies (Cheng et al., 2007b; Kashani et al., 2021;
Khajehzadeh et al., 2012b), to describe the non-circular slip surface, the
typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) was used, and FOS was computed
by different methods (including Spencer method or Janbu simplified
method, Morgenstern-Price method and Spencer method, Morgenstern-
Price method, respectively). Moreover, to search the non-circular crit­
ical slip surface, some variants of particle swarm optimization have been
applied, including one improved particle swarm optimization in which
only several flies within the whole particle group are allowed and par­
ticles with better objective values fly more within one step than those
with worse objective values, a new particle swarm optimization with
passive congregation, and seven modified particle swarm optimizations
(including comprehensive learning particle swarm optimization, het­
erogeneous comprehensive learning particle swarm optimization,
improved random drift particle swarm optimization, extraordinary
particle swarm optimization, particle swarm optimization with auton­
omous particle groups, fractional‑order Darwinian particle swarm
optimization, improved particle swarm optimization based on dynamic
parameter setting), respectively. However, in the study (Jellali and
Frikha, 2017), to describe the non-circular slip surface, one new method
was proposed in which the non-circular slip surface was described by
two arcs (Fig. 11) and whose FOS was computed by limit-analysis
method. And a new constrained particle swarm optimization with the
nonstationary dynamic penalty has been proposed to search the non-
circular critical slip surface.
It must be noted that, in Fig. 11, the model for description non-
circular slip surface by two logarithmic spiral arcs is provided. In this
figure, (M0 M1 ) and (M1 M2 ) are two logarithmic spiral arcs which
compose the whole slip surface. Sliding body of slope is composed by
two blocks which are (M0M1S1S0) and (M1M2S1). Ω0 and Ω1 are the focus
for the arcs (M0 M1 ) and (M1 M2 ). M0 and M2 are two end points of slip
surface on the slope surface. M1 is the intersection of two arcs of slip
surface. S0 and S1 are two points on the slope surface. α and β are angles
of slope surface at toe and crest, respectively. H is the slope high at crest.
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

Table 3
Summary of studies by the swarm intelligence methods.
Algorithm Type of critical slip Method of computing FOS Type of study Citation
surface

particle swarm optimization non-circular slip Spencer method six published soil slope cases Cheng et al., 2007a
surface
non-circular slip Spencer method, simplified Janbu six published and one designed soil slope Cheng et al., 2007b
surface method cases
non-circular slip finite element method one published soil slope case Tian et al., 2009
surface
circular slip surface Spencer method, Bishop simplified two published soil slope cases Kalatehjari et al., 2014
method
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Gandomi et al., 2015
surface
rotating ellipsoid three-dimensional Limit equilibrium two published and two deigned soil slope Kalatehjari et al., 2015
shape method cases
circular slip surface ordinary method of slices, Bishop a published soil slope case Chen et al., 2015
simplified method
non-circular slip Spencer method four designed soil slope cases Shinoda, 2015
surface
non-circular slip Spencer method one published and one designed soil slope Shinoda and Miyata,
surface cases 2019
circular slip surface Bishop’s method a real highway slope Sharma et al., 2019
circular slip surface Bishop’s method two published and three designed soil Himanshu and Burman,
slope cases 2019
circular slip surface Bishop, Fellenius, Janbu, and Janbu three published soil slope cases Singh et al., 2019a
corrected methods
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method, Spencer three published soil slope cases Kashani et al., 2021
surface method
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Li et al., 2022
surface
improved particle swarm optimization non-circular slip Spencer method, simplified Janbu six published and one designed soil slope Cheng et al., 2007b
surface method cases
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Khajehzadeh et al.,
surface 2012b
non-circular slip limit-analysis method one designed soil slope case Jellali and Frikha, 2017
surface
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method, Spencer three published soil slope cases Kashani et al., 2021
surface method
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Himanshu et al., 2020
surface
ant colony optimization non-circular slip Spencer method six published soil slope cases Cheng et al., 2007a
surface
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method four published soil slope cases Kahatadeniya et al.,
surface 2009
improved ant colony optimization non-circular slip Spencer method one published soil slope case Gao, 2005
surface
non-circular slip Spencer method five published soil slope cases Gao, 2014
surface
non-circular slip Spencer method two published soil slope cases Gao, 2016a
surface
non-circular slip Spencer method two published soil slope cases Gao, 2016b
surface
non-circular slip Spencer method one published soil slope case and one Mishra et al., 2020a
surface embankment slope
non-circular slip vector sum method three published soil slope cases Yang et al., 2021
surface
biogeography-based optimization non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Gandomi et al., 2017
algorithm surface
circular slip surface Spencer method one published soil slope case Singh et al., 2018b
circular slip surface Bishop, Fellenius, Janbu, and Janbu three published soil slope cases Singh et al., 2019a
corrected methods
circular slip surface Fellenius method two published soil slope cases Singh et al., 2019b
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method two published soil slope cases Xie et al., 2023
surface
firefly algorithm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Gandomi et al., 2015
surface
circular slip surface Janbu method one published soil slope cases Singh and Banka, 2021
improved firefly algorithm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Khajehzadeh et al.,
surface 2014
cuckoo search non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Gandomi et al., 2015
surface
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method five published soil slope cases Gandomi et al., 2015
surface
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Li et al., 2022
surface
(continued on next page)

10
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

Table 3 (continued )
Algorithm Type of critical slip Method of computing FOS Type of study Citation
surface

improved cuckoo search non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method five published soil slope cases Gandomi et al., 2015
surface
whale optimization algorithm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Li et al., 2022
surface
improved whale optimization non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method four published soil slope cases Li et al., 2020
algorithm surface
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method two published soil slope cases Li et al., 2021
surface
leapfrog algorithm non-circular slip simplified Janbu method, Spencer five published soil slope cases Bolton et al., 2003
surface method
artificial fish swarms algorithm non-circular slip Spencer method two published soil slope cases and one real Cheng et al., 2008a
surface dam engineering
artificial bee colony algorithm non-circular slip Spencer method six published soil slope cases Kang et al., 2013
surface
levy flight krill herd algorithm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Gandomi et al., 2015
surface
imperialistic competitive algorithm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method four published soil slope cases Kashani et al., 2016
surface
improved radial movement non-circular slip Spencer method four published soil slope cases Jin and Feng, 2018
optimization algorithm surface
antlion optimization algorithm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method four published soil slope cases Mishra et al., 2019
surface
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Li et al., 2022
surface
teaching–learning based optimization non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method four published soil slope cases Mishra et al., 2020c
algorithm surface
grey wolf optimization algorithm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method four published soil slope cases Himanshu et al., 2021
surface
non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Li et al., 2022
surface
leader dolphin herd algorithm circular slip surface simplified Bishop method two published soil slope cases Ma et al., 2021
salp swarm algorithm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Li et al., 2022
surface

Fig. 10. Triple-point method to describe circular slip surface.

R0 and R1 are radii of arc (M0 M1 ) at points M0 and M1. R2 and R3 are
radii of arc (M1 M2 ) at points M1 and M2. θ0 and θ1 are the angles be­
tween radii of arc (M0 M1 ) at points M0 and M1 and the horizontal line,
respectively. θ2 and θ3 are the angles between radii of arc (M1 M2 ) at
points M1 and M2 and the horizontal line, respectively. α1 is the angle
between line M1S1 and horizontal line.
Moreover, in another study (Himanshu et al., 2020), the unified
particle swarm optimization has been applied to determine the non- Fig. 11. Non-circular slip surface described by two arcs.
circular critical slip surface whose FOS was computed by
Morgenstern-Price method. However, the non-circular slip surface was circular slip surface by the point-by-point method is provided. More­
described by the coordinates of two end points on the potential slip over, in this figure, A to D are four points on the slope surface, in which,
surface and inclination angles of base of two end slices, and the slip B and C are points at toe and crest. Points (V1, V2, V3, …, Vi, …, Vnsls, and
surface was described by the point-by-point generation method, as Vnsls+1) are controlling points on the slip surface, in which, points (V1
shown in Fig. 12. The details can be found in reference (Himanshu et al., and Vnsls+1) are two end points on slope surface. Points (IP1, IP2, IP3, …,
2020). IPi, …) are the intersections of the extension line between Vnsls, and
It must be noted that, in Fig. 12, the model of generation the non- Vnsls+1 and the extension lines between adjacent two controlling points

11
W. Gao and S. Ge
(V1 and V2, V2 and V3, …, Vi-1 and Vi, …). V1IP1, V2IP2, and V3IP3
represent the lines between controlling points and intersections (IP1, IP2,
IP3, …, IPi, …).
Except for particle swarm optimization, the ant colony optimization
and its variants are another widely used methods to search the non-
circular critical slip surface for soil slopes (Cheng et al., 2007a; Gao,
2005; Gao, 2014; Gao, 2016a; Gao, 2016b; Kahatadeniya et al., 2009;
Mishra et al., 2020a; Yang et al., 2021). In the two studies which use the
original ant colony optimization (Cheng et al., 2007a; Kahatadeniya
et al., 2009), two different typical methods (Cheng et al., 2007a; Zol­
faghari et al., 2005) have been applied to describe the non-circular slip
surfaces, and Spencer method and Morgenstern-Price method have been
applied to compute FOS. However, to improve the original ant colony
optimization, some variants have been applied too (Gao, 2005; Gao,
2014; Gao, 2016a; Gao, 2016b; Mishra et al., 2020a; Yang et al., 2021).
For example, in three studies (Gao, 2005; Gao, 2014; Mishra et al.,
2020a), the continuous ant colony optimization has been applied to
search the non-circular critical slip surface and Spencer method has been
used to compute FOS. Moreover, in the first two, one variant of typical
method (Cheng et al., 2007a) was applied to describe the non-circular
slip surface for which dynamic bounds condition has been abandoned,
and the last one used the typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a). However,
in another three studies (Gao, 2016a; Gao, 2016b; Yang et al., 2021),
three variants of ant colony optimization (premium-penalty ant colony
optimization, meeting ant colony optimization, and MAX-MIN ant col­
ony optimization) have been applied to determine the non-circular
critical slip surface. And for three studies, the variant of typical
method (Cheng et al., 2007a) without dynamic bounds condition was
used to describe the slip surface. However, to compute FOS, the Spencer
method was used for the first two, and the vector sum method using the
stress field produced by the numerical manifold method analysis was
used for the last one.
Apart from above two main kinds of studies, the studies by
biogeography-based optimization algorithm which simulates the
migration mechanism of animals and plants species between islands
over time (Simon, 2008) are another main topic (Gandomi et al., 2017;
Singh et al., 2018b; Singh et al., 2019a; Singh et al., 2019b; Xie et al.,
2023). In those studies, the circular critical slip surface of soil slopes was
searched in most of them (Singh et al., 2018b; Singh et al., 2019a; Singh
et al., 2019b). In those three studies, the basic model (Fig. 2(a)) was used
to describe the circular slip surface whose FOS was computed by
different methods, i.e. Spencer method, four methods (Fellenius, Janbu,
Bishop, and Janbu corrected methods), and Fellenius method, respec­
tively. For another two studies (Gandomi et al., 2017; Xie et al., 2023),
the non-circular critical slip surface has been searched. And for the first
one, the typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) was used to describe the
non-circular slip surface whose FOS was computed by Morgenstern-
Price method. However, for the last one, to describe the non-circular
slip surface, a variant of typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) has
Fig. 12. Point-by-point generation method for non-circular slip surface.
12
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
been proposed, in which, the linear functions between the discrete
points on the slip surface were replaced by the logistic functions. And the
corresponding FOS was computed by Morgenstern-Price method too.
Moreover, the firefly algorithm to simulate social behavior of fireflies
(Yang, 2008) and its variants were also widely used to determine the
critical slip surface of slopes (Gandomi et al., 2015; Khajehzadeh et al.,
2014; Singh & Banka, 2021). In two studies (Gandomiet al., 2015;
Khajehzadeh et al., 2014), the non-circular critical slip surface has been
searched, and the typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) was used to
describe the non-circular slip surface whose FOS was computed by
Morgenstern-Price method. And, the first one used the original firefly
algorithm, and the second one used one variant called opposition-based
firefly algorithm. However, in the study (Singh and Banka, 2021), the
original firefly algorithm was applied to search the circular critical slip
surface. And the basic model (Fig. 2(a)) was used to describe the circular
slip surface whose FOS was computed by Janbu method.
In 2015, another swarm intelligent method called the cuckoo search
inspired from the breeding behavior such as brood parasitism of certain
cuckoo species (Yang, 2008) and its variants have been applied to search
the non-circular critical slip surface of soil slopes too (Gandomi et al.,
2015; Li et al., 2022). For the first two studies, the typical method
(Cheng et al., 2007a) was used to describe the non-circular slip surface
whose FOS was computed by Morgenstern-Price method. However, the
first one used the original cuckoo search and the another used its variant
with the evolutionary boundary constraint handling strategy. Finally, in
the study (Li et al., 2022), the non-circular slip surface is described by
another typical method (Zolfaghari et al., 2005), and the corresponding
FOS has been computed by Morgenstern-Price method.
Currently, another swarm intelligent method called whale optimi­
zation algorithm inspired by whale predation (Mirjalili et al., 2016) and
its variants have also been used to search the non-circular critical slip
surface of soil slopes (Li et al., 2020, 2021, 2022). For the study (Li et al.,
2022), whale optimization algorithm was applied, and the non-circular
slip surface is described by the typical method (Zolfaghari et al., 2005),
whose corresponding FOS has been computed by Morgenstern-Price
method. For another study (Li et al., 2020), an improved whale opti­
mization algorithm using three strategies (initial population generation
with opposition-based learning technique, a nonlinear decrease of
parameter, and one mutation operation) was applied, and the non-
circular slip surface is described by another typical method (Cheng
et al., 2007a) whose corresponding FOS has been computed by
Morgenstern-Price method too. And in the study (Li et al., 2021),
another improved whale optimization algorithm which employs a
nonlinear adjustment parameter and Gaussian perturbation operator
was applied, and the non-circular slip surface is described by the typical
method (Zolfaghari et al., 2005), whose corresponding FOS has also
been computed by Morgenstern-Price method.
Apart from above methods, some other swarm intelligent methods
have also been applied to search the non-circular critical slip surface of
W. Gao and S. Ge
soil slopes, such as leapfrog algorithm (Bolton et al., 2003) which sim­
ulates the leap frog behavior (Snyman, 1982), artificial fish swarms al­
gorithm (Cheng et al., 2008a) which simulates the searching food
mechanisms of fish flocks (Li et al., 2002), artificial bee colony algo­
rithm (Kang et al., 2013) which is inspired by the honeybee foraging
behaviour (Karaboga and Basturk, 2007), levy flight krill herd algorithm
(Gandomi et al., 2015) which is inspired by the krill swarms herding
response to the biological and environmental motivation (Wang et al.,
2013), imperialistic competitive algorithm (Kashani et al., 2016) which
mimics the imperialistic competition process (Atashpaz-Gargari and
Lucas, 2007), improved radial movement optimization (Jin and Feng,
2018) which modifies data structure of original radial movement opti­
mization that simulates the movement of particles (as particle swarm
optimization) in their search space by radial movement (Rahmani and
Yusof, 2014), antlion optimization algorithm (Mishra et al., 2019; Li
et al., 2022) which simulates the predatory behavior of antlion (Mirja­
lili, 2015), teaching–learning based optimization algorithm (Mishra
et al., 2020c) which simulates the teaching–learning phenomenon in a
classroom (Rao et al., 2011), grey wolf optimization algorithm
(Himanshu et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022) which simulates the hierarchy of
leadership and hunting techniques of grey wolves (Mirjalili et al., 2014),
leader dolphin herd algorithm (Ma et al., 2021) which simulates the
predatory behavior of dolphins (Zhao et al., 2015), salp swarm algo­
rithm (Li et al., 2022) which simulates the swarming behavior of salps
when navigating and foraging in oceans (Mirjalili et al., 2017). In those
studies, most of them searched the non-circular critical slip surface
except for one (Ma et al., 2021). For the studies searching the non-
circular critical slip surface, most of them used the typical method
(Cheng et al., 2007a) to describe the slip surface except for four ones
(Bolton et al., 2003; Jin and Feng, 2018; Kang et al., 2013; Li et al.,
2022). In the study (Bolton et al., 2003), the simple method in which the
non-circular slip surface was only described by the coordinates of con­
trolling points was applied, and in the study (Kang et al., 2013), the
variant of typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) in which the dynamic
bounds condition has been abandoned was applied. Moreover, for other
two studies (Jin and Feng, 2018; Li et al., 2022), another typical method
(Zolfaghari et al., 2005) was used. However, in all studies, the
Morgenstern-Price and Spencer methods are two main methods applied
to compute FOS. Different from above studies, in the study (Ma et al.,
2021), the circular critical slip surface of soil slope was studied, in
which, a simple variant of basic model (Fig. 2(a)) was applied to
describe the circular slip surface whose FOS was computed by simplified
Bishop method. And for this variant, the circular slip surface is crossing
the slope angle.
From above studies, different swarm intelligence methods can be
applied to search different types of critical slip surfaces (circular or non-
circular ones) of the slopes. And, most of them searched the two-
dimensional non-circular critical slip surface except one which studied
on the three-dimensional non-circular critical slip surface. Almost all
used the limit equilibrium method to compute FOS except three ones
which used the limit-analysis method, finite element method, and nu­
merical manifold method. To describe the non-circular slip surface, the
typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) and its variants are applied in most
of the studies. The used variants include two main types, which are one
without the dynamic bounds condition and another in which the dy­
namic bounds condition was replaced by the random slip surface gen­
eration method. It must be noted that, for the new variants, they can be
used easily but their computing efficiency are somewhat low. Moreover,
in those studies, to describe the non-circular slip surface, one simple
method in which non-circular slip surface has been described by the
coordinates of controlling points was proposed. However, in this
method, to generate the feasible slip surfaces, some restraint conditions
must be used for the controlling points. Therefore, this simple method
cannot be used easily. In addition, an important contribution of those
studies is the proposed three new methods for description the non-
circular slip surface. For the first one, the non-circular slip surface was
13
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
described by two arcs which was a very simple method. This method can
be used easily but it cannot generate the real general non-circular slip
surface. For the second method, the non-circular slip surface was
described by the coordinates of two end points for the potential slip
surface and the inclination angles of base for two end slices, and the slip
surface was generated by the point-by-point generation method. This
method can generate the general non-circular slip surface, but for its too
many operations, it cannot be used easily. For the third one, the linear
functions between the discrete points on the slip surface were replaced
by the logistic functions. This method can generate the smooth non-
circular slip surface, but for its complex operation, it cannot be used
easily too. While for the studies to search the circular critical slip sur­
face, all used limit equilibrium method to compute FOS and most of
them describe the slip surface by the basic model (Fig. 2(a)). However,
one new method to describe the critical slip surface called triple-point
method has been proposed, in which the coordinates of three control­
ling points have been used to describe the circular slip surface. Although
this method can generate the feasible critical slip surface, it is very
complex and cannot be used easily. Finally, another important contri­
bution of those studies is three-dimensional slip surface of slope has
been studied. In this study, the three-dimensional slip surface was
described by a kind of rotating ellipsoid shape. Although this three-
dimensional slip surface is very simple, it has also made a beneficial
trial to solve real three-dimensional slope engineering. At last, because
the main work in those studies is to search the critical slip surface by new
proposed method, most studies use the published and designed slope
cases to compare with other works. However, the real slope cases are
used in three studies (Cheng et al., 2008a; Mishra et al., 2020a; Sharma
et al., 2019), which are one dam engineering, one embankment slope,
and a highway slope.
2.4. Studies by hybrid intelligence method
Because the single method has its shortcomings, the application of
the hybrid intelligence method that combines some single methods is the
hot topic in this field. Therefore, nowadays, many hybrid intelligence
methods have already been used to search the critical slip surface of
slopes, including those by particle swarm optimization and chaotic
optimization, gravitational search algorithm with sequential quadratic
programming, ant colony algorithm and simulated annealing algorithm,
continuous ant colony algorithm and immune optimization, particle
swarm optimization and harmony search, genetic algorithm and tabu
search, evolutionary programming and immune optimization, genetic
algorithm and simulated annealing algorithm, black hole and differen­
tial evolution algorithm, salp swarm algorithm with Levy’s flight and
chaotic optimization, and sperm swarm optimization and chaotic opti­
mization, etc. The main studies based on the hybrid intelligence
methods can be summarized in Table 4.
From Table 4, it can be found that most of the hybrid intelligence
methods have been applied to search the non-circular critical slip sur­
face of soil slopes, such as that by particle swarm optimization and
chaotic optimization (Zhao et al., 2008), that by ant colony algorithm
and simulated annealing algorithm (Huang and Qiao, 2010), that by
particle swarm optimization and harmony search (Cheng et al., 2012; Li
and Chu, 2011), that by gravitational search algorithm with sequential
quadratic programming (Raihan et al., 2013), that by genetic algorithm
and tabu search (Zhu and Chen, 2014), that by continuous ant colony
algorithm and immune optimization (Gao, 2014), that by evolutionary
programming and immune optimization (Gao, 2015b), that by salp
swarm algorithm with Levy’s flight and chaotic optimization (Li and
Wu, 2021), and that by sperm swarm optimization and chaotic optimi­
zation (Khajehzadeh, 2022). In those studies, the Spencer and
Morgenstern-Price methods are two main used methods to compute
FOS, except for two in which the Janbu method and vector sum method
were used (Huang and Qiao, 2010; Li and Wu, 2021). However, the
vector sum method was conducted by the finite element method.
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

Table 4
Summary of studies by the hybrid intelligence methods.
Algorithm Critical slip surface Method to compute FOS Type of study Citation
type

hybrid intelligence method by particle swarm non-circular slip Spencer method two published soil slope cases Zhao et al., 2008
optimization and chaotic optimization surface
hybrid intelligence method by ant colony algorithm and non-circular slip Janbu method one published soil slope case Huang and Qiao,
simulated annealing algorithm surface 2010
hybrid intelligence method by particle swarm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method one published and one designed soil Li and Chu, 2011
optimization and harmony search surface slope cases
non-circular slip Spencer method two published soil slope cases and Cheng et al., 2012
surface one real hydropower dam
hybrid intelligence method by gravitational search non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method three published soil slope cases Raihan et al.,
algorithm with sequential quadratic programming surface 2013
hybrid intelligence method by genetic algorithm and circular and non- simplified Bishop method, two published soil slope cases and Zhu and Chen,
tabu search circular slip surface Morgenstern-Price method one embankment slope 2014
hybrid intelligence method by continuous ant colony non-circular slip Spencer method five published soil slope cases Gao, 2014
algorithm and immune optimization surface
hybrid intelligence method by evolutionary non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method, four published soil slope cases Gao, 2015b
programming and immune optimization surface Spencer method
hybrid intelligence method by genetic algorithm and circular slip surface finite element method an earth-rock dam and one multi- Cen et al., 2020
simulated annealing algorithm layered soil slope
hybrid intelligence method by black hole and circular slip surface Bishop method four published soil slope cases Ding et al., 2021
differential evolution algorithm
hybrid intelligence method by salp swarm algorithm non-circular slip vector sum method three published soil slope cases Li and Wu, 2021
with Levy’s flight and chaotic optimization surface
hybrid intelligence method by sperm swarm non-circular slip Morgenstern-Price method two published soil slope cases Khajehzadeh,
optimization and chaotic optimization surface 2022

Moreover, for description the non-circular slip surface, the typical
method (Cheng et al., 2007a) has been used for two studies (Cheng et al.,
2012; Li and Chu, 2011), and its variant without the dynamic bounds
condition has been used by four studies (Gao, 2014; Gao, 2015b; Kha­
jehzadeh, 2022; Zhu and Chen, 2014;). And another typical method
(Zolfaghari et al. 2005) was used for one study (Li and Wu, 2021).
However, for other three studies (Huang and Qiao, 2010; Raihan et al.,
2013; Zhao et al., 2008), the specific method to describe the non-circular
slip surface has not been given clearly in the original papers. Different
from those studies, there are three studies to search the circular critical
slip surface of slopes by hybrid intelligence methods, which are that by
genetic algorithm and tabu search (Zhu and Chen, 2014), that by genetic
algorithm and simulated annealing algorithm (Cen et al., 2020), and
that by black hole and differential evolution algorithm (Ding et al.,
2021). For those studies, different methods have been used to compute
the FOS, which are simplified Bishop method, finite element method,
and Bishop method, respectively. Moreover, in those three studies, the
circular slip surfaces were all described by the basic model as shown in
Fig. 2(a).
For above studies, the different hybrid intelligence methods can also
be used to search the different types of two-dimensional critical slip
surfaces (circular or non-circular ones) of the slopes. And, most of them
searched the non-circular critical slip surface, and limit equilibrium
method was applied to compute FOS in almost all studies except two
which used the finite element method. In most of the studies, the typical
method (Cheng et al., 2007a) and its variant without dynamic bounds
condition have been applied to describe the non-circular slip surface.
However, few studies are on the searching of circular critical slip surface
described by basic model, and in these studies, most of them used limit
equilibrium method to compute FOS except one which used the finite
element method. Therefore, in the studies by the hybrid intelligence
methods, except for the used hybrid intelligence methods, no other
contributions have been reported. At last, because the main work in
those studies is to proposed new method for searching the critical slip
surface of slope too, most studies use the published and designed slope
cases for comparison with other works. However, the real slope cases are
used in three studies (Cen et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2012; Zhu and Chen,
2014), which are an earth-rock dam and one multi-layered soil slope,
one hydropower dam, and an embankment slope.
Analysis the studies on slope stability computation based on the
artificial intelligence methods, it can be found that all critical slip sur­
faces (non-circular and circular) can be searched by the artificial intel­
ligence methods but most studies searched the non-circular critical slip
surface. For the studies of searching the non-circular critical slip surface,
the typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) and its variants have been
widely used to describe the non-circular slip surface. However, for most
of studies searching the circular critical slip surface, basic model (Fig. 2
(a)) has been applied to describe the circular slip surface. Two-
dimensional critical slip surface was searched in most studies, and
only a few searched the three-dimensional critical slip surfaces. More­
over, most of studies computed FOS by the limit equilibrium method and
only a few applied the finite element method and other methods. At last,
for above four kinds of studies, the swarm intelligence method is the
mostly widely used one, and follows by the simulated evolutionary
method and quasi-physical intelligence method. And nowadays, the
hybrid intelligence method is the least used one, as shown in Fig. 13.
Moreover, the simulated evolutionary method was the firstly used one,
and the hybrid intelligence method was the latest used method.
Analysis the above studies, the main difference of them is the used
artificial intelligence methods. To analyze the studies deeply, the com­
parison of four kinds of studies can be summarized in Table 5.
From Table 5, for combing the advantages of some single methods,
the performance of hybrid intelligence method was better. However, for
the hybrid intelligence method, more controlling parameters should be
determined beforehand which prevents its application. Moreover,
nowadays, to simulate the different natural phenomena, many new
methods about the quasi-physical intelligence methods and swarm in­
telligence methods have been proposed. For those new methods, their
performance is getting better and better, and operation is getting more
and more convenient. Therefore, the new development on slope stability
computation based on artificial intelligence methods should be using the
new swarm intelligence method or quasi-physical intelligence method
whose performance is suitable, controlling parameters are few, and the
operation is easy. Moreover, because the three-dimensional slope sta­
bility analysis is closer to real landslide problem, the studies on the
three-dimensional slope stability computation should be another new
development direction. However, the three-dimensional slip surface is a
very complicated space surface which is very hard to be described, and it
is a very hard work to compute the stability of three-dimensional slope.
Therefore, the key works in this field should be to propose the suitable

14
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

Fig. 13. Results on the studies on slope stability computation by intelli­

gence methods.

method for description the three-dimensional slip surface and develop

the simple method to compute the stability of three-dimensional slope.

Fig. 14. Flow chart of slope stability evaluation by artificial intelli­

3. Slope stability evaluation by artificial intelligence methods
gence methods.

In this kind of studies, the relationship of influence factors and the

stability indexes (FOS, stability number, and stability status) of the slope
has been constructed by the block box model of artificial intelligent
methods. The flow chart of this kinds of studies can be shown in Fig. 14.
From Fig. 14, there are two main parts, which are selection of the
data sets and construction the relationship of influence factors and sta­
bility index. For the first part, the data sets can be collected from liter­
atures, computation results, and field data. And the computation results
can be from the analytical or numerical methods. For the collected data
sets, the influence factors and the corresponding stability index should
be determined beforehand. Moreover, the number of data sets is very
important. For the second part, the artificial intelligence methods are
applied to construct the relationship of influence factors and stability
index. Therefore, only in the second part, the artificial intelligence
methods are used.
According to the used artificial intelligence methods, the studies on
slope stability evaluation by artificial intelligence methods can be sub­
divided into four kinds, which are studies by the artificial neural
network methods, studies by the vector machine methods, studies by the
hybrid intelligence methods, and ones by other intelligence methods.
Actually, those studies can also be subdivided into those by regression
methods and ones by classification methods. For evaluation of FOS and
stability number, the regression method was generally used, and the
classification method was generally used for the evaluation of stability
status. Here, the studies will be reviewed from the used artificial intel­
ligence methods.
3.1. Studies by artificial neural network method
Because the artificial neural network is a good block box model to
describe the relationship between system behavior and its influences, to
evaluate the slope stability, the artificial neural network methods have
already been widely used. And there have been numerous studies, which
can be subdivided into studies by back-propagation neural network,
those by extreme learning training machine, those by probabilistic
neural network, those by functional network, those by self-organising
maps neural network, those by convolutional neural network, those by
recurrent neural network, and those by long short-term memory
network, etc. The main studies based on artificial neural network
methods are summarized in Table 6.
From Table 6, for its simplicity and practicability, the forward back-
propagation neural network and its variants are the mostly used
methods. For its simple network structure (including one input layer,
one output layer, and one or some hidden layers, as shown in Fig. 15),
the back-propagation neural network is the widely used feed forward
neural network trained by the traditional back-propagation algorithm.
In those studies, similar works have been done in five studies
(Chakraborty and Goswami, 2017; Ferentinou and Sakellariou, 2007; Lu
and Rosenbaum, 2003; Ospina-Dávila and Orozco-Alzate, 2020; Sakel­
lariou and Ferentinou, 2005). For four studies (Ferentinou and Sakel­
lariou, 2007; Lu and Rosenbaum, 2003; Ospina-Dávila and Orozco-
Alzate, 2020; Sakellariou and Ferentinou, 2005), based on the data
sets from literatures for circular failure slopes whose numbers are 52, 32,
168, and 46, respectively, the relationship of six influence factors (slope
angle, slope height, unit weight, cohesion, angle of internal friction, and
pore water pressure coefficient) and two stability indexes (stability
status and FOS) of soil slopes has been established by the back-
propagation neural network. Two stability indexes are estimated at
the same time in two studies (Ferentinou and Sakellariou, 2007; Lu and
Rosenbaum, 2003), in which, the neural network have six inputs and
two outputs. However, the neural network with six inputs and one
output was established in other two studies for which one estimate the
stability status or FOS (Sakellariou and Ferentinou, 2005) and another
estimate the stability status (Ospina-Dávila and Orozco-Alzate, 2020).
For the last one (Chakraborty and Goswami, 2017), only one stability

Table 5
Comparison of four kinds of studies on slope stability computation by artificial intelligence methods.
Study type Principle Advantage Disadvantage

studies by the quasi-physical
intelligence methods
studies by the simulated
evolutionary methods
studies by the swarm intelligence
methods
studies by the hybrid intelligence
methods
simulation physical phenomena
in nature
simulation natural evolution
process
simulation swarm behavior of
living things
combing some single algorithms
global searching for all critical slip surface, good mathematical inconvenient operation
foundation, many new methods
global searching for all critical slip surface, convenient operation poor mathematical foundation
global searching for all critical slip surface, convenient operation, poor mathematical foundation
many new methods
global searching for all critical slip surface, good performance, inconvenient operation, too many
many new methods parameters

15
W. Gao and S. Ge
index (FOS) is estimated, but 200 data sets are collected from the
computed results of limit equilibrium method (Fellenius method,
Bishop’s method, Morgenstern-Price method, and Janbu method) for
soil slopes. Moreover, in two studies (Ferentinou and Sakellariou, 2007;
Sakellariou and Ferentinou, 2005), based on the data sets from litera­
tures for wedge failure slopes (the number of data sets are 15 or 22, and
14, respectively), the relationship of eight factors (unit weight, co­
hesions of two joints, angles of internal friction for two joints, angle of
intersection line for the two joint-sets, slope height, and slope angle) and
two stability indexes (FOS and stability status) of rock slopes has been
established by the back-propagation neural network too. However, in
the first study, two indexes are estimated (FOS and stability status) at the
same time and only one index is estimated (FOS or stability status) in the
last one. It must be noted that, in those five studies, the slope stability
status is represented by stable or unstable, and the three-layer network is
used in most studies except for two (Lu and Rosenbaum, 2003; Ospina-
Dávila and Orozco-Alzate, 2020) in which the four-layer network is
used. And the structures of neural networks were determined by the trail
and error method.
It must be noted that, in Fig. 15, the structure of typical three-layer
forward back-propagation neural network is provided. In this figure,
N1, N2, …, Nn represent the hidden layer neurons. O1 represent the
output layer neuron. “Input#1”, “Input#2”, …, “Input#m” represent the
input information for the input layer neurons. “Output” represents the
output information for the output layer neuron. Wij and Wj1 represent
the linking weights between input layer and hidden layer and those
between hidden layer and output layer, respectively. bj and b1 represent
threshold of hidden layer and output layer neurons, respectively.
For eight studies (Abdalla et al., 2015; Bui et al., 2020; Erzin and
Cetin, 2012; Erzin and Cetin, 2013; Kostić et al., 2016; Marrapu and
Jakka, 2020; Moayedi, 2021; Wang et al., 2005), the limit equilibrium
method was applied to compute the stability index. And in most studies,
the computed stability indexes are FOS except for one (Moayedi, 2021)
in which the dimensionless stability number (Nr) was computed by
follow equation,
Nr = σ ci /γHF (7)
where σci and F represent the undrained shear strength and FOS,
respectively. γ is soil unit weight, and H is slope height.
However, in those studies, different influence factors are considered
and different data sets are used. For example, in the study (Wang et al.,
2005), considering five influence factors (slope height, slope angle,
cohesion, internal friction angle, and bulk density), 27 data sets from
Yudonghe landslide located in western Hubei Province of China were
used. In the study (Erzin and Cetin, 2012), considering four factors
(cohesion, internal friction angle, bulk unit weight, and seismic coeffi­
cient), 1200 data sets from the artificial soil slopes subjected to earth­
quake forces were used. In the study (Kostić et al., 2016), 57 data sets
from clay-marl deposits in Belgrade (Serbia) considering seven main
factors (cohesion and internal friction angle for soil, unit mass, pore
pressure coefficient, slope inclination, slope height, and bedrock depth)
were used. And, in the study (Bui et al., 2020), 630 data sets using the
computer software OptumG2 for cohesive soil slope considering four
factors (footing setback distance, slope angle, applied stress on the
footing, and undrained shear strength of the cohesive soil) have been
collected to construct the neural network model. Moreover, in the study
(Marrapu and Jakka, 2020), to assess the slope stability of Kalla-
Coonoor Hill road in Southern India, 32 data sets from 32 locations
along the road considering four factors (inclination angle, internal
friction angle, cohesive, and unit weight) were used. Finally, in the study
(Moayedi, 2021), to provide design solution charts for a two-layered
cohesive slope, using 400 data sets from computer software OptumG2
too, the neural network model considering three factors (slope angle, the
ratio of two soil layer thicknesses to top layer height, undrained shear
strength ratio of soil) was applied. However, different from above
16
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
studies in which only one neural network model has been constructed, in
the study (Erzin and Cetin, 2013), based on 675 data sets from the ho­
mogenous finite soil slope, two back-propagation neural network
models have been constructed considering different influence factors
which are five factors (slope height, cotangent of slope angle, cohesion
and internal friction angle, and unit weight) and four factors (cohesion,
internal friction angle, slope height, and cotangent of slope angle).
Similar as above study, in the study (Abdalla et al., 2015), using 160
dada sets from the clayey soil slope, two neural network models have
also been constructed considering different influence factors which are
five factors (slope height (H), slope angle (β), internal friction angle and
cohesion (φ and c), and unit weight (γ)) and three factors (internal
friction angle (φ), slope angle (β), and stability number (c/γH)). More­
over, different from above studies in which only one index was esti­
mated, in the study (Wang et al., 2005), two stability indexes (FOS and
stability status) were estimated at the same time. At last, in above
studies, to collect the data sets to estimate the stability status which is
represented by stable or unstable, the engineering geology evaluation
method has been used, and to collect the data sets to estimate the FOS,
the limit equilibrium method was applied. It must be noted that, in those
studies, the three-layer network is used in most studies except for one
(Wang et al., 2005) in which the four-layer network is used. And in four
studies (Abdalla et al., 2015; Bui et al., 2020; Marrapu & Jakka, 2020;
Wang et al., 2005), the neural network structures are determined by the
trail and error method. In other three studies (Erzin and Cetin, 2012;
Erzin and Cetin, 2013; Kostić et al., 2016), the structures of neural
networks are determined by the trail and error method based on
empirical formula. Finally, in the study (Moayedi, 2021), the structure
of neural network is selected by the Harris hawks’ optimization.
Moreover, based on the field data of slopes, there are four studies
(Choobbasti et al., 2009; Fakir and Ferentinou, 2017; Lee et al., 2009;
Liang and Zhang, 2010) to estimate the stability status and one (Azar­
afza et al., 2020) to estimate FOS. In those studies, different influence
factors are considered and different data sets are used. For example, in
the study (Choobbasti et al., 2009), to estimate the slope stability status
in Noabad, Mazandaran, Iran, from field investigation, 1000 data sets
considering eight influence factors (field sample coordinates (x and y),
slope angle, saturation degree, internal friction angle, cohesion, and
horizontal and vertical coefficient of earthquake) were used. In another
study (Lee et al., 2009), using on-site slope failure data from the South
Cross-Island Highway in southern Taiwan whose number is 340, the
slope failure potential described by stability status was evaluated
considering eight influence factors (slope height, slope gradient angle,
daily rainfall, surface acceleration, cumulative precipitation, slope di­
rection, strength of materials, and earthquake magnitudes). In the study
(Liang and Zhang, 2010), based on 20 data sets from field investigation
for highway slope in Chongqing of China and considering six influence
factors (slope height, slope angle, internal friction angle, cohesion, unit
weight, and pore water pressure coefficient), the slope stability status
was estimated. In the study (Fakir and Ferentinou, 2017), based on an
extensive database of 141 case histories from 41 open pit mines around
the world, considering 18 main factors (rock type, precipitation, slope
height, slope angle, blasting method, rock quality designation, uncon­
fined compressive strength, weathering, groundwater, tectonic regime,
discontinuity persistence, discontinuity aperture, discontinuity spacing,
discontinuity filling, discontinuity orientation, discontinuity roughness,
number of major discontinuity sets, and previous instabilities), the sta­
bility status of open pit mine rock slope was estimated. However,
different from other studies in which the slope stability status is
described by stable or unstable, the slope stability status of rock slope in
this study is described by three statuses which are stable, failure in set of
benches, and overall failure. Similarly, in the study (Azarafza et al.,
2020), using the geometric and geomechanical properties (slope angle,
slope height, geology, sedimentary units, location, failure mode and
measurements, tectonostructural related zones, discontinuity condition,
and characterisation of rock mass discontinuities) of 200 sedimentary
 Table 6

W. Gao and S. Ge
Summary of studies by the artificial neural network methods.
Network model Input Output Data set Data set source Type of study Citation
number

back-propagation slope angle, slope height, unit weight, cohesion, angle of internal friction, pore water stability 32 literature collection from published work Lu and Rosenbaum,
neural network pressure coefficient status and 2003
FOS
slope angle, slope height, unit weight, cohesion, angle of internal friction, pore water FOS or 46 literature collection from published work Sakellariou and
pressure coefficient stability Ferentinou, 2005
status
unit weight, cohesions of two joints, angles of internal friction for two joints, angle of FOS or 14 literature collection from published work Sakellariou and
intersection line for the two joint-sets, slope height, slope angle stability Ferentinou, 2005
status
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, angle of internal friction, bulk density FOS and 27 limit equilibrium method analytical method and geology Wang et al., 2005
stability and engineering geology evaluation for hydropower
status evaluation landslide
slope angle, slope height, unit weight, cohesion, angle of internal friction, pore water stability 52 literature collection from published work Ferentinou and
pressure coefficient status and Sakellariou, 2007
FOS
unit weight, cohesions of two joints, angles of internal friction for two joints, angle of stability 15 or 22 literature collection from published work Ferentinou and
intersection line for the two joint-sets, slope height, slope angle status and Sakellariou, 2007
FOS
field sample coordinates (x and y), slope angle, saturation degree, internal friction stability 1000 field data site investigation and Choobbasti et al., 2009
angle, cohesion, horizontal and vertical coefficient of earthquake status laboratory test for natural
landslides
slope height, slope gradient angle, daily rainfall, surface acceleration, cumulative stability 340 field data in-site survey for highway Lee et al., 2009
precipitation, slope direction, strength of materials, earthquake magnitudes status slopes
slope height, slope angle, internal friction angle, cohesion, unit weight, pore water stability 20 field data field investigation and Liang and Zhang, 2010
pressure coefficient status laboratory test for highway
slopes
17

cohesion, internal friction angle, bulk unit weight, seismic coefficient FOS 1200 limit equilibrium method analytical method for man- Erzin and Cetin, 2012
made slopes
slope height, cotangent of slope angle, cohesion and internal friction angle, unit weight FOS 675 limit equilibrium method analytical method for Erzin and Cetin, 2013
cohesion, internal friction angle, slope height, cotangent of slope angle homogeneous finite slopes
internal friction angle, slope angle, stability number FOS 160 limit equilibrium method analytical method for designed Abdalla et al., 2015
slope height, slope angle, internal friction angle, cohesion, unit weight clayey soil slopes
overall slope angle, overall dump height, cohesion and internal friction angle of dump FOS 520 numerical simulation numerical method for coal Rahul et al., 2015
material, hydrological condition, number of benches technique mine dump slope
slope angle, slope height, cohesion and internal friction angle, height of the water level, FOS 100 finite element method numerical method for natural Gelisli et al., 2015
unit weight landslides
slope angle, cohesion and internal friction angle, pore water pressure FOS 100 finite element method numerical method for road cut Verma et al., 2016
slopes
cohesion, internal friction angle, unit mass, pore pressure coefficient, slope inclination, FOS 57 limit equilibrium method analytical method for designed Kostić et al., 2016

Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

slope height, bedrock depth slope cases
slope angle, slope height, unit weight, cohesion, internal friction angle, pore water FOS 200 limit equilibrium method analytical method for highway Chakraborty and
pressure coefficient slopes Goswami, 2017
rock type, precipitation, slope height, slope angle, blasting method, rock quality stability 141 field data field investigation for open pit Fakir and Ferentinou,
designation, unconfined compressive strength, weathering, groundwater, tectonic status mine slopes 2017
regime, discontinuity persistence, discontinuity aperture, discontinuity spacing,
discontinuity filling, discontinuity orientation, discontinuity roughness, number of
major discontinuity sets, previous instabilities
setback distance ratio, slope angle, applied stresses on the slope, undrained shear FOS 630 limit equilibrium method analytical method for designed Bui et al., 2020
strength of the cohesive soil slope cases
cohesion and internal friction angle of residual soil, young’s modulus of residual soil, FOS 400 numerical simulation numerical method for residual Ray et al., 2020
cohesion and internal friction angle of weathered rock mass, young’s modulus of technique soil slopes
weathered rock mass, slope height, average slope angle, cohesion and internal friction
angle of the soil–rock joint interface, residual soil depth
(continued on next page)
 Table 6 (continued )

W. Gao and S. Ge
Network model Input Output Data set Data set source Type of study Citation
number

slope height, slope angle, cohesion and the internal friction angle of residual soil,
residual soil depth, young’s modulus of weathered rock mass, cohesion and the internal
friction angle of weathered rock mass
slope angle, slope height, geology, sedimentary units, location, failure mode and stability 200 field data field investigation for Azarafza et al., 2020
measurements, tectonostructural related zones, discontinuity condition, status sedimentary rock slopes
characterisation of rock mass discontinuities
inclination angle, internal friction angle, cohesive, unit weight FOS 32 limit equilibrium method analytical method for road Marrapu and Jakka,
slopes 2020
geological strength index, intensity of surcharge load, unconfined compressive strength FOS 756 finite element method numerical method for open pit Ahour et al., 2020
of the intact rock, slope height, slope angle mine rock slopes
slope height, slope gradient, slope aspect, slope form, formation type, rock mass volume, stability 65 literature collection from published work Ospina-Dávila and
rock mass size, angle between slope gradient and stratigraphic, angle between slope status Orozco-Alzate, 2020
aspect and depositional trend, vegetation coverage thickness, vegetation coverage
percentage, variance in gradient, maximum accumulated typhoon rainfall, inclination,
catchment area, excavation height of slope toe
slope angle, slope height, unit weight, cohesion, internal friction angle, pore water stability 168 literature
pressure coefficient status
slope angle, the ratio of two soil layer thicknesses to top layer height, undrained shear stability 400 limit equilibrium method analytical method for designed Moayedi, 2021
strength ratio of soil number cohesive slopes
effective cohesion, effective friction angle, unit weight FOS 933 finite element method numerical method for designed Hsiao et al., 2022
soil slopes
slope height, slope angle, depth of residual soil layer and cohesion, young’s modulus and FOS 400 numerical simulation numerical method for residual Karir et al., 2022
internal friction angle of both residual soil and weathered bedrock soil slope
the height of the bench at dragline sitting level, the height of the bench between the FOS 506 numerical method for
coal-rib roof and dragline sitting level, berm width at dragline sitting level, angle of the overburden
face of the bench at dragline sitting level, the slope angle of the bench between the coal- mine dump slope
rib roof and the dragline sitting level, coal-rib height, angle of internal friction and
18

cohesion of the dump material

extreme learning slope height, slope angle, unit weight, pore water pressure coefficient, cohesion, FOS 127 literature collection from published work Liu et al., 2014
training machine internal friction angle
slope angle, geological strength index, material constant, disturbance factor stability 2094 limit analysis method analytical method for rock Li et al., 2016
number slopes in mines
depth factor, slope angle, ratio of undrained shear strength of fill material to that of stability 10 limit analysis method analytical method for designed Qian et al., 2019
below soil, the rate of the linear increase in undrained shear strength number soil slopes
slope height, slope angle, unit weigh, rock material constant, uniaxial compressive FOS 1235 limit equilibrium method analytical method for rock Deng et al., 2020
strength, disturbance factor, geological strength index slopes
probabilistic neural slope angle, slope height, unit weight, cohesion, internal friction angle, pore water stability 46 literature collection from published work Li and Liu, 2005
networks pressure coefficient status
slope angle, slope height, unit weight, cohesion, internal friction angle, pore water stability 41 literature collection from published work Shangguan et al., 2009
pressure coefficient status

Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

functional networks slope angle, slope height, unit weight, cohesion, internal friction angle, pore water FOS or 103 literature collection from published work Suman et al., 2016
pressure coefficient stability
status
self-organising maps slope height, slope angle, rock quality designation, intact rock strength, rock type stability 141 field data field investigation for open pit Ferentinou and Fakir,
of neural network (lithology), groundwater conditions, weathering, tectonic regime, number of major status rock slopes 2018
discontinuity sets, discontinuity orientation, discontinuity aperture, discontinuity
persistence, discontinuity roughness, discontinuity spacing, discontinuity filling,
precipitation, blasting method, previous instability
convolutional neural effective cohesion, effective internal friction angle, unit weight FOS 933 finite element method numerical method for designed Hsiao et al., 2022
network soil slopes
cohesion, unit weight, internal friction angle FOS 600 finite difference numerical numerical method for designed Soranzo et al., 2023
model soil slopes
(continued on next page)
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

rock slopes in Iran, the stability status which are stable, unstable and
uncertain status can be evaluated. Moreover, the results of neural

Mahmoodzadeh et al.,
network model have been utilized for regression and classification

Huang et al., 2023

Fatty et al., 2022
analysis for Q-slope results of rock slopes. It must be noted that, in those
studies, the three-layer neural network is used in most of them except for
two (Azarafza et al., 2020; Fakir and Ferentinou, 2017). For the study
Citation

2022
(Fakir and Ferentinou, 2017), the four-layer neural network is devel­
oped, and in the another one (Azarafza et al., 2020), the specific struc­
ture of neural network is not given. Moreover, the neuron number of

numerical method for designed

hidden layer was determined by the trail and error method in those
numerical method for real

analytical method for real

studies.
In addition, in seven studies (Ahour et al., 2020; Gelisli, et al., 2015;
Hsiao et al., 2022; Karir et al., 2022; Rahul et al., 2015; Ray et al., 2020;
Verma et al., 2016), the numerical simulation technique was applied to
Type of study

rock slopes

landslides obtain the data sets and the FOS of slopes was estimated. However,
different data sets were used in those studies. For example, for the study
slopes

(Rahul et al., 2015), considering six factors (overall slope angle, overall
dump height, cohesion and internal friction angle of dump material,
hydrological condition, and number of benches), 520 data sets were
limit equilibrium method

obtained based on the results by shear strength reduction technique for

numerical simulation

numerical simulation

the dump slope of an Indian coal mine. For another study (Gelisli, et al.,
2015), based on the results of finite element method for Giresun land­
Data set source

slides (Eastern Turkey), 100 data sets considering six factors (slope
angle, slope height, cohesion and angle of internal friction for soil,
height of the water level, and unit weight of soil) were obtained. In the
study (Verma et al., 2016), to investigate the stability of road cut slope
near Rudraprayag National highway of India, 100 data sets from the
Data set

results of shear strength reduction technique considering four factors

number

9512

9018

3610

(slope angle, cohesion and angle of internal friction for soil, and pore
327

water pressure) were obtained. Moreover, in the study (Ray et al., 2020),
based on a database of 400 slope models using numerical simulation
technique, two neural network models were constructed to predict FOS
stability

stability
number

number
Output

of Shiwalik slopes which are residual soil slopes in the Himalayan Re­
FOS

FOS

gion. For the first model, eleven factors are considered, which are
cohesion and internal friction angle of residual soil, young’s modulus of
disturbance factor, geological strength index, intact rock constant, slope angle, the ratio

residual soil, cohesion and internal friction angle of weathered rock

unit weight, cohesion, internal friction angle, slope angle, slope height, pore pressure

mass, young’s modulus of weathered rock mass, slope height, average

disturbance factor, geological strength index, intact rock constant, slope angle,

slope angle, cohesion and internal friction angle of the soil–rock joint
slope height, slope angle, internal friction angle, cohesion, volumetric weight

interface, and residual soil depth. For the second model, eight factors are
considered, which are slope height, slope angle, cohesion and internal
friction angle of residual soil, residual soil depth, young’s modulus of
weathered rock mass, and cohesion and internal friction angle of
weathered rock mass. And, for the study (Ahour et al., 2020), based on
the results from shear strength reduction technique for the rock slope,
756 data sets considering five factors (geological strength index, in­
tensity of surcharge load, unconfined compressive strength of the intact
rock, slope height, and slope angle) were obtained. Moreover, in the
recent study (Hsiao et al., 2022), based on the results of random finite
element method for designed soil slope considering three random vari­
ables (effective cohesion, effective internal friction angle, and unit
weight), 933 data sets were obtained. And in another recent study (Karir
horizontal seismic coefficient

of water level to slope height

et al., 2022), two types of data sets were used. The first data sets whose
number is 400 were generated by the numerical method for the residual
soil slope by considering nine parameters (including slope height, slope
angle, depth of residual soil layer and cohesion, young’s modulus and
angle of internal friction of both residual soil and weathered bedrock).
And the second data sets whose number is 506 were generated by the
Input

numerical method for the overburden mine dump slope by considering

ratio

eight parameters (the height of the bench at dragline sitting level, the
height of the bench between the coal-rib roof and dragline sitting level,
Table 6 (continued )

berm width at dragline sitting level, angle of the face of the bench at
memory neural

dragline sitting level, the slope angle of the bench between the coal-rib
long short‑term
Network model

roof and the dragline sitting level, coal-rib height, angle of internal
network

friction and cohesion of the dump material). In above studies, the three-
layer neural network is used in most of them except for two (Gelisli,
et al., 2015; Ray et al., 2020), in which the four-layer neural network is

19
W. Gao and S. Ge
Fig. 15. Structure of typical three-layer forward back-propagation neural network.
applied. And for all studies, the neuron number of hidden layer was
determined by the trail and error method.
Finally, in the study (Ospina-Dávila and Orozco-Alzate, 2020), using
65 data sets from the slope cases in central region of Taiwan during
typhoons Herb and Nari from literature which consider 16 influence
factors (slope height, slope gradient, slope aspect, slope form, formation
type, rock mass volume, rock mass size, angle between slope gradient
and stratigraphic, angle between slope aspect and depositional trend,
vegetation coverage thickness, vegetation coverage percentage, vari­
ance in gradient, maximum accumulated typhoon rainfall, inclination,
catchment area, and excavation height of slope toe), the stability status
of slopes (stable or unstable) have been estimated by the three-layer
neural network model whose neuron number of hidden layer is deter­
mined by the trail and error method too.
Apart from the back-propagation neural network, extreme learning
training machine, which is a general feed-forward neural network with
the same structure of back-propagation neural network, and trained by
an extreme learning algorithm, is another widely used method. For
example, in the study (Liu et al., 2014), considering six factors (slope
height, slope angle, unit weight, pore water pressure coefficient, cohe­
sion, and angle of internal friction), based on 127 data sets from liter­
ature, the FOS of circular failure soil slope was estimated. In another
study (Li et al., 2016), according to four factors (slope angle, geological
strength index, material constant, and disturbance factor), the dimen­
sionless stability number of rock slope was estimated based on 2094 data
sets from the results by the limit analysis method. Similar as above
study, in 2019 (Qian et al., 2019), the stability number of the inhomo­
geneous soil slope was estimated based on 10 data sets from the results
of the upper and lower bound limit analysis method considering four
factors (depth factor, slope angle, ratio of undrained shear strength of fill
material to that of below soil, and the rate of the linear increase in un­
drained shear strength). Moreover, in another study (Deng et al., 2020),
to estimate the FOS of rock slope considering seven factors (slope height,
slope angle, unit weight of the rockmass, rock material constant, uni­
axial compressive strength, disturbance factor, and geological strength
index), 1235 homogeneous rock slopes around the world were
computed by the GEOSLOPE software based on the H-B criterion to
obtain the data sets. It should be noted that, in those four studies, the
three layers network is used whose neuron number of hidden layer is
selected by the trail and error method.
Except for above two main methods, some other neural networks
have also been applied, such as the probabilistic neural network (Li and
20
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
Liu, 2005; Shangguan et al., 2009), functional network (Suman et al.,
2016), self-organising maps neural network (Ferentinou and Fakir,
2018), convolutional neural network (Hsiao et al., 2022; Soranzo et al.,
2023), and long short‑term memory neural network (Fatty et al., 2022;
Huang et al., 2023; Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2022). The probabilistic
neural network is a kind of radical basis network which uses the radial
basis transfer function with the same structure of back-propagation
neural network. However, for this kind of neural network, the neuron
number of the hidden layer is the same as the number of training pat­
terns. The function network is as similar as back-propagation neural
network, but its structure is determined according to the data properties.
However, as one special type of neural network, the self-organising
maps neural network can transform complex, multi-dimensional data
into visually decipherable clusters by learning them, and construct the
mapping from input data space onto a two-dimensional array of nodes,
as shown in Fig. 16.
Moreover, as one deep learning network, convolutional neural
network is also a special kind of neural network and its largest feature is
weight sharing, which is composed of multiple network layers including
convolution layers and fully-connected layer. And as another deep
learning network, long short‑term memory neural network is a special
recurrent neural network, in which, to prevent the long-term depen­
dence problems in the recurrent neural network (gradient explosion and
gradient disappearance), a memory block mechanism has been added. In
those studies, for three ones (Li and Liu, 2005; Shangguan et al., 2009;
Suman et al., 2016), based on the data sets from literatures, considering
six factors (slope angle, slope height, unit weight, cohesion, internal
friction angle, and pore water pressure coefficient), the soil slope sta­
bility status which is represented by stable and unstable was deter­
mined. However, the number of data sets for three studies are different
which are 46, 41, and 103, respectively. Moreover, the four-layer
network is used for the study (Shangguan et al., 2009), and the other
two use the three-layer networks. And for the third study (Suman et al.,
2016), another functional network model was also constructed to
determine the FOS of soil slope. And in the study (Ferentinou and Fakir,
2018), to determine the stability status of rock slopes for an open pit
which are described by stable slopes, failure in set of benches, and
overall failure, the data sets from 141 case histories of 57 slopes for 41
open pit mines from worldwide were obtained which consider 18 factors
(slope height, slope angle, rock quality designation, intact rock strength,
rock type (lithology), groundwater conditions, weathering, tectonic
regime, number of major discontinuity sets, discontinuity orientation,
W. Gao and S. Ge
discontinuity aperture, discontinuity persistence, discontinuity rough­
ness, discontinuity spacing, discontinuity filling, precipitation, blasting
method, and previous instability). Moreover, for two studies by the
convolutional neural network (Hsiao et al., 2022; Soranzo et al., 2023),
considering three factors (cohesion, internal friction angle, and unit
weight), based on the data sets generated by the numerical method, the
FOS of soil slopes have been determined. However, the numbers of data
sets for two studies are 933 and 600 respectively. And, for two studies,
the neural network models have six layers whose structure is determined
by the testing. At last, for the first study by long short‑term memory
neural network (Fatty et al., 2022), to evaluate the safety of rock slopes
subjected to earthquakes and pore water pressure effect, which is rep­
resented by the stability number, two neural network models have been
constructed. For the first model, 9512 data sets have been used which
consider five factors (including disturbance factor, geological strength
index, intact rock constant, slope angle, and horizontal seismic coeffi­
cient), and for the second one, 9018 data sets have been used which also
consider five factors (including disturbance factor, geological strength
index, intact rock constant, slope angle, and the ratio of water level to
slope height). However, for two models, the numerical method was
applied to obtain the corresponding stability number. And, for the sec­
ond study (Huang et al., 2023), based on the data sets whose number is
3610 collected from landslides of Ganzhou, China considering five fac­
tors (slope height, slope angle, internal friction angle, cohesion, and
volumetric weight), the neural network model has been constructed to
determine their FOS. In this study, for the data sets, the FOS of landslide
was computed by the limit equilibrium method using Geo-Studio soft­
ware. For the third one (Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2022), using data sets of
327 slope cases in Iran considering six factors (unit weight, cohesion,
internal friction angle, slope angle, slope height, and pore pressure ratio)
whose FOS were computed by shear strength reduction method by
PLAXIS software, the long short‑term memory network model has been
constructed to determine FOS of slope. Moreover, for three studies, the
neural network models have four hidden layers whose structure is
determined by the testing.
For above studies, different neural networks can also be applied to
evaluate the different stability indexes (FOS, stability number, and sta­
bility status) for the different slopes (soil slope and rock slope). Because
the FOS or stability status is used widely to describe the slope stability,
most studies estimate FOS or stability status, and only a few estimates
the stability number. Moreover, for the numerous and complex influence
factors on the rock slope stability, most studies determine the stability of
soil slopes, and only a few analyze the stability of rock slopes. Generally,
the stability status of soil slopes was described by two states, which are
stable and unstable. However, for the complex rock slopes, to describe
their stability state more specifically, their stability status should be
Fig. 16. Structure of self-organising maps neural network (the self-organising maps grid can be hexagonal, or rectangular; the black object indicates the node that
was selected as the best match for the input pattern.).
21
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
described by more states, such as three ones, which are stable, failure in
set of benches and overall failure, or stable, unstable and uncertain
status. Moreover, because the three-layer neural network is simple and
can describe the complex relationship of influence factors and the sta­
bility indexes of the slope well, it is used mostly widely, and only a few
uses the complex four-layer neural network. Because it is a hard work to
select a suitable method to determine the structure of neural network,
the trail and error method has been used in most studies. However, to
improve the trail and error method, some other methods have been used
too, such as improved trail and error method based on the empirical
formula and Harris hawks’ optimization. Although the computation is
complex for determination the structure of neural network by Harris
hawks’ optimization, because the suitable structure of neural network
can be selected, it has made a beneficial trial to solve the hard work of
determination the suitable structure of neural network. Moreover, some
other neural networks whose structure can be determined directly from
the data sets have also been used, such as self-organising maps of neural
network, probabilistic neural network, and functional network. And for
the deep learning networks, their structures are very complex, and there
are many hidden layers, such as four. Because those neural networks are
very complex and hard to be used, they have been applied in a few
studies. However, it can be taken as one important contribution of those
studies. At last, in most studies, for the simple structure of neural
network, only one stability index was estimated, and only a few esti­
mates the two indexes at the same time.
3.2. Studies by support vector machine method
As a machine learning method from theory of statistical learning, the
support vector machine is one elegant pattern recognition tool and be­
comes an alternative for artificial neural network method (Chauhan
et al., 2019). Therefore, the support vector machine methods have been
widely applied to analyze the slope stability, which include support
vector machine, least square support vector machines, relevance vector
machine, etc. The main studies can be summarized as in Table 7.
From Table 7, the support vector machine is the widely used one. In
four studies (Lin et al., 2018; Samui, 2008; Samui, 2013; Zhang et al.,
2022), based on data sets from literature and considering six factors
(slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction angle, pore water
pressure coefficient, and unit weight), the stability status (stable or fail)
or FOS of soil slopes have been estimated. However, in the study (Samui,
2008), two support vector machine models have been constructed to
estimate the stability status and FOS, respectively. And for two studies
(Lin et al., 2018; Samui, 2013), only the stability status has been studied.
However, for the last one (Zhang et al., 2022), only the FOS has been
studied. Moreover, the numbers of data sets for those studies are 46, 32,
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

107, and 60, respectively. Different from above studies, in the current
study (Wang et al., 2023), also based on the data sets from literature
whose number is 77 and only considering five factors (slope height,
slope angle, cohesion, internal friction angle, and unit weight), the
stability status (stable or fail) of soil slopes has been estimated by the
support vector machine model. And for three studies (Azarafza et al.,
2020; Liang and Zhang, 2010; Zhou et al., 2017), by using the data sets
from field investigation, the stability status of slopes has been estimated
by support vector machine. However, the numbers of data sets and field
sites are different, which are 200 rock slopes in Iran, 20 from highway
slope in Chongqing of China, and 153 and 151 from East-West highway
(Gerik-Jeli) in Malaysia, respectively. Moreover, the considered influ­
ence factors are also different, which are nine factors (slope height, slope
angle, failure mode, geology, location, discontinuity condition, tecto­
nostructural related zones, sedimentary units, and measurements and
characterisation of rock mass discontinuities), six factors (slope height,
slope angle, cohesion, internal friction angle, pore water pressure co­
efficient, and unit weight), and two factors (rainfall and underground
water level), respectively. And, for the first study, three stability status
(stable, unstable and uncertain status) have been used, and for the last
two ones, two stability status (stable and unstable) have been used.
Moreover, in two studies (Sahoo et al., 2022; Sari et al., 2019), for the
data sets whose numbers are 1010 and 30, the limit equilibrium
approach has been used to compute the FOS of slopes. For the first study,
the slope cases are from the designed slopes which consider three factors
(cohesion, internal friction angle, and unit weight), and for the second
one, the slope cases are from the Guthrie Corridor Expressway near Paya
Jaras interchange in Malaysia which consider five factors (slope angle,
unit weight, effective cohesion, and effective internal friction angle).
Finally, there are two studies (Karir et al., 2022; Mahmoodzadeh et al.,
2022) using the numerical method to compute the FOS of the real slope
cases. For the first one, two different data sets are used, in which, one is
generated from the residual soil slopes considering nine parameters
(including slope height, slope angle, depth of residual soil layer and
cohesion, young’s modulus and internal friction angle of both residual
soil and weathered bedrock) whose number is 400, and another is
generated from the overburden mine dump slope considering eight pa­
rameters (height of the bench at dragline sitting level, height of the
bench between coal-rib roof and dragline sitting level, berm width at
dragline sitting level, angle of the face of bench at dragline sitting level,
slope angle of bench between coal-rib roof and dragline sitting level,
coal-rib height, internal friction angle and cohesion of dump material)

Table 7
Summary of studies by the support vector machine methods.
Model Input Output Data set Data set source Type of study Citation
number

support vector slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction angle, FOS or 46 literature collection from Samui, 2008
machine pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight stability published work
status
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction angle, stability 20 field data field investigation and Liang and Zhang,
pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight status laboratory test for 2010
highway slopes
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction angle, stability 32 literature collection from Samui, 2013
pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight status published work
rainfall, underground water level stability 153, 151 field data site investigation for Zhou et al., 2017
status highway slopes
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction angle, stability 107 literature collection from Lin et al., 2018
pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight status published work
slope angle, unit weight, effective cohesion, effective FOS 30 limit analytical method for Sari et al., 2019
internal friction angle equilibrium highway slopes
approach
slope height, slope angle, failure mode, geology, location, stability 200 field data field investigation for Azarafza et al.,
discontinuity condition, tectonostructural related zones, status sedimentary rock slopes 2020
sedimentary units, measurements and characterisation of
rock mass discontinuities
slope height, slope angle, depth of residual soil layer and FOS 400 numerical numerical method for Karir et al., 2022
cohesion, young’s modulus and internal friction angle of simulation residual soil slope
both residual soil and weathered bedrock
height of the bench at dragline sitting level, height of the FOS 506 numerical method for
bench between coal-rib roof and dragline sitting level, overburden mine dump
berm width at dragline sitting level, angle of the face of slope
bench at dragline sitting level, slope angle of bench
between coal-rib roof and dragline sitting level, coal-rib
height, internal friction angle and cohesion of dump
material
unit weight, cohesion, internal friction angle, slope angle, FOS 327 numerical numerical method for Mahmoodzadeh
slope height, pore pressure ratio simulation real slopes et al., 2022
cohesion, internal friction angle, unit weight FOS 1010 limit analytical method for Sahoo et al., 2022
equilibrium designed soil slopes
method
soil gravity, slope height, pore pressure value, cohesion, FOS 60 literature collection from Zhang et al., 2022
internal friction angle, slope angle published work
slope angle, slope height, internal friction angle, cohesion, stability 77 literature collection from Wang et al., 2023
unit weight status published work
least square slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction angle, FOS or 46 literature collection from Samui and Kothari,
support vector pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight stability published work 2011
machine status
rainfall, underground water level stability 153, 151 field data site investigation for Zhou et al., 2017
status highway slopes
relevance vector slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction angle, FOS 80 literature collection from Zhao et al., 2012
machine pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction angle, stability 89 literature collection from Zhang et al., 2014
pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight status published work

22
W. Gao and S. Ge
whose number is 506. For the second study, the data sets of 327 slope
cases in Iran considering six factors (unit weight, cohesion, internal
friction angle, slope angle, slope height, and pore pressure ratio) has
been used. For using the support vector machine, an important work is
to determine the type of kernel function and its parameters. In six studies
(Azarafza et al., 2020; Karir et al., 2022; Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2022;
Samui, 2008; Samui, 2013; Sari et al., 2019), the trial and error method
was used to select the kernel function type and its parameters. And in
another four ones (Liang and Zhang, 2010; Lin et al., 2018; Zhang et al.,
2022; Zhou et al., 2017), to improve the trial and error method, the grid
search with cross validation has been applied. However, in two studies
(Sahoo et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023), the method to determine the
parameters of support vector machine is not given clearly.
Apart from the traditional support vector machine, some other sup­
port vector methods have also been applied in this field, such as the least
square support vector machine (Samui and Kothari, 2011; Zhou et al.,
2017) and relevance vector machine method (Zhang et al., 2014; Zhao
et al., 2012). As one modified support vector machine, the least square
support vector machine uses a least squares linear system. And the
relevance vector machine method is a specialization of spares Bayesian
model. Compared with the traditional support vector machine, for
relevance vector machine method, the same data-dependent kernel basis
was used, but it has a comparable generalization performance with a
higher sparse solution. And for three studies (Samui and Kothari, 2011;
Zhang et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2012), based on data sets from literature
and considering six factors (slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal
friction angle, pore water pressure coefficient, and unit weight), the FOS
or stability status of soil slopes has been estimated. However, for the first
study, two models have been constructed to estimate the FOS or stability
status, and only one index has been estimated for the last two ones,
which are stability status and FOS, respectively. Moreover, the number
of data sets for three studies are 46, 89, and 80, respectively. However,
for the study (Zhang et al., 2014), to improve the original relevance
vector machine method, the hyper-parameter of kernel function has
been adapted iteratively to construct adaptive relevance vector machine
approach. At last, in the study (Zhou et al., 2017), based on the data sets
from East-West highway (Gerik-Jeli) in Malaysia, the least square sup­
port vector machine was applied. For those two methods, the important
work is still to determine the type of kernel function and its parameters.
And in three studies (Samui and Kothari, 2011; Zhang et al., 2014; Zhao
et al., 2012), the trail and error method was still used. However, in the
study (Zhou et al., 2017), to improve the trail and error method, the grid
search with cross validation has been applied.
From above studies, three methods can be used to estimate FOS or
stability status for different slopes (soil slope and rock slope). Moreover,
most of them determine the soil slope stability, and only one determines
the stability of rock slope. For the complex rock slope, its stability status
was generally described by three states (stable, unstable and uncertain
status). And while, for the simple soil slope, its stability status was only
described by two states (stable and unstable). Moreover, for all studies,
only one stability index was estimated each time, that is to say, there is
only one output for each model. Because it is a hard work to select a
suitable method to determine the type of kernel function and its pa­
rameters, the trail and error method has been used in most studies.
However, to improve the trail and error method, the grid search with
cross validation has also been applied in some studies.
3.3. Studies by hybrid intelligence method
For the complexity of slope stability evaluation, the single artificial
intelligence method cannot solve it very well. Thus, the hybrid intelli­
gent method combing by two or more artificial intelligence methods
which can solve the shortcomings of single method has been applied in
this field widely, and there are many studies based on hybrid intelli­
gence methods. These hybrid intelligence methods include artificial
neural network with genetic algorithm, artificial neural network with
23
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
particle swarm optimization, artificial neural network with differential
evolution and Bayesian regularization method, artificial neural network
with imperialist competitive algorithm, artificial neural network with
artificial bee colony algorithm, artificial neural network with firefly
algorithm, artificial neural network with biogeography-based optimi­
zation, artificial neural network with ant colony optimization, artificial
neural network with evolutionary strategy, artificial neural network
with probability-based incremental learning, artificial neural network
with equilibrium optimization, artificial neural network with vortex
search algorithm, artificial neural network with Harris hawks’ optimi­
zation, support vector machine with artificial bee colony algorithm,
support vector machine with particle swarm optimization, support
vector machine with firefly algorithm, support vector machine with
genetic algorithm, least squares support vector machine with particle
swarm optimization, least squares support vector classification with
firefly algorithm, least squares support vector machine with quantum-
behaved particle swarm optimization, genetic programming with ge­
netic algorithm, fuzzy k-nearest neighbor algorithm with firefly algo­
rithm, logistic regression with firefly algorithm, decision tree with firefly
algorithm, random forest with firefly algorithm, gradient boosting ma­
chine with firefly algorithm, fuzzy artificial neural network, M5Rules
algorithm with genetic algorithm, cubist algorithm with particle swarm
optimization, artificial neural network with adaptive sine cosine algo­
rithm and pattern search, artificial neural network with teach­
ing–learning-based optimization, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system
with teaching–learning-based optimization, radial basis function neural
network with brainstorm optimization, least squares support vector
machine with gravitational search algorithm, least squares support
vector machine with whale optimization algorithm, random forest with
improved pelican optimization algorithm, hybrid ensemble method
using classifier ensembles (gaussian process classification, support vec­
tor machine, adaptive boosted decision tree, quadratic discriminant
analysis, artificial neural network, and k-nearest neighbour) with ge­
netic algorithm, another hybrid ensemble method using classifier en­
sembles (support vector classifier, decision tree, k-nearest neighbour,
extreme gradient boosting, linear discriminant analysis, random forest,
artificial neural network, extremely random tree, logistic regression,
naive bayes, and bagging classifier) with artificial bee colony algorithm,
and stacking ensemble learning model using regression algorithms
(decision tree, support vector machine, nearest neighbor, and random
forest) with Bayesian optimization, etc. The main studies are summa­
rized in Table 8.
From Table 8, there are 14 studies using the similar data sets from
literatures considering six factors (slope height, slope angle, cohesion,
internal friction angle, pore water pressure coefficient, and unit weight)
to estimate the stability status or FOS for soil slopes based on different
hybrid methods. In those studies, the stability status (stable or failed) is
estimated in seven studies (Hoang and Pham, 2016; Kardani et al., 2021;
Li and Liu, 2004; Li et al., 2023; Qi and Tang, 2018a; Qi and Tang,
2018b; Xue et al., 2014) by different methods (least squares support
vector classification with firefly algorithm, hybrid ensemble method
using classifier ensembles with artificial bee colony algorithm, evolu­
tionary artificial neural network by genetic algorithm, random forest
with improved pelican optimization algorithm, six hybrid intelligent
methods, hybrid ensemble method using classifier ensembles with ge­
netic algorithm, support vector machine with particle swarm optimi­
zation) using different data sets whose data number are 168, 257, 46,
210, 168, 148, and 46, respectively. For the study (Li and Liu, 2004), the
genetic algorithm was applied to optimize the linking weights and biases
of fully connected three-layer neural network whose structure was
selected by the trail and error method. And for two studies (Hoang and
Pham, 2016; Xue et al., 2014), the hyper-parameters of least squares
support vector machine and support vector machine were determined by
firefly algorithm and particle swarm optimization, respectively. As
similar as those studies, in the study (Qi and Tang, 2018a), the firefly
algorithm was applied to select the hyper-parameters of logistic
W. Gao and S. Ge
regression, gradient boosting machine, decision tree, support vector
machine, random forest, and three-layer feed-forward neural network.
Then, six hybrid intelligent methods have been proposed and their
performance have been compared. However, in their another study (Qi
and Tang, 2018b), the hybrid ensemble method with classifier ensem­
bles has been proposed (shown in Fig. 17), which includes quadratic
discriminant analysis, gaussian process classification, artificial neural
network, adaptive boosted decision tree, support vector machine, and k-
nearest neighbour. In this method, the combination method used the
weighted majority voting whose required weights were optimized by
genetic algorithm.
It should be noted that, in Fig. 17, the model of hybrid ensemble
method by the classifier ensembles is shown. In this figure, “input”
represents the input information for the single classifier model. y1, y2,
…, yn represent the results of the single classifier models. “Prediction
result” represents the final result by the weighted majority voting
method using the results of the single classifier models.
And for the study (Kardani et al., 2021), another new hybrid
ensemble method using classifier ensembles has been proposed. In this
method, the artificial bee colony algorithm was used to determine the
best combination of base classifiers and select the suitable meta-classifier
from 11 individual methods (decision tree, k-nearest neighbour, support
vector classifier, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, linear
discriminant analysis, extremely random tree, naive bayes, logistic
regression, artificial neural network, and bagging classifier). At last, for
the current study (Li et al., 2023), the improved pelican optimization
algorithm was used to optimize the trees and the minimum number of
leaf nodes in the random forest. Moreover, for six studies (Li et al., 2015;
Rukhaiyar et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2022a; Xue, 2017; Yang et al., 2004;
Zeng et al., 2022), FOS is estimated by different methods (least squares
support vector machine with quantum-behaved particle swarm optimi­
zation, artificial neural network with particle swarm optimization,
stacking ensemble learning model using regression algorithms (decision
tree, support vector machine, nearest neighbor, and random forest) with
Bayesian optimization, least squares support vector machine with par­
ticle swarm optimization, genetic programming with genetic algorithm,
least squares support vector machine with gravitational search algo­
rithm, and least squares support vector machine with whale optimiza­
tion algorithm) using different data sets whose numbers are 31, 83, 210,
46, 46, and 66, respectively. In the study (Yang et al., 2004), the genetic
programming was used to construct the mathematical model of FOS and
the influence factors, and the parameters of constructed model have
been determined by genetic algorithm. And for two studies (Li et al.,
2015; Xue, 2017), the parameters of least squares support vector ma­
chine have been selected by the quantum-behaved particle swarm
optimization and one modified particle swarm optimization. In the
study (Rukhaiyar et al., 2018), the particle swarm optimization was
applied to select the linking weights and biases of artificial neural
network with three layers whose structure was determined by the trail
and error method. And in the study (Zeng et al., 2022), the gravitational
search algorithm and whale optimization algorithm were used to select
the proper parameters of least squares support vector machine, and two
hybrid intelligent models were constructed. Finally, for the last one (Sun
et al., 2022a), a new stacking ensemble learning model has been pro­
posed. In this model, multiple base learners called the first-level learners
(including nearest neighbor, support vector machine, and decision tree)
are trained and the output of these learners is used as the input of the
second-level learner (random forest) in the next stage. And, the final
results of FOS are obtained by the meta-learners. However, in the study
(Das et al., 2011), the FOS and stability status (stable and failed) are
estimated by two models of artificial neural network with differential
evolution based on 46 data sets. For those models, the differential
evolution was applied to determine the linking weights and biases of
three-layer feed-forward neural network whose structure was deter­
mined by the trail and error method.
Moreover, there is also one study (Gong, 2021) using the data sets
24
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
from literatures. However, for this study, the data sets considering seven
factors (density, cohesion, internal friction angle, slope height, slope
ratio, pore water pressure coefficient, and seismic intensity) were from
the 23 representative loess slopes in Northwest China described in the
literature. Based on the data sets, the hybrid intelligent method of the
three-layer artificial neural network with particle swarm optimization
was used to estimate the FOS of slope. For this hybrid intelligent
method, the particle swarm optimization has been applied to select the
suitable weights and biases of three-layer neural network whose number
of hidden neurons was determined according to the previous study.
In ten studies (Bui et al., 2020; Gordan et al., 2016; Khajehzadeh
et al., 2022; Koopialipoor et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2022;
Safa et al., 2020; Shang et al., 2022; Xue, 2017; Poso and de Jesus,
2022), based on the data sets from the results by limit equilibrium
method, the FOS of soil slopes has been estimated by different methods,
such as M5Rules algorithm with genetic algorithm, artificial neural
network with particle swarm optimization, artificial neural network
with adaptive sine cosine algorithm and pattern search, artificial neural
network with genetic algorithm, artificial neural network with imperi­
alist competitive algorithm, cubist algorithm with particle swarm opti­
mization, fuzzy artificial neural network, artificial neural network with
artificial bee colony algorithm, radial basis function neural network
with brainstorm optimization, and least squares support vector machine
with particle swarm optimization, respectively. In those studies, the
number of data sets are different, which are 450, 699, 189, 10, 450, 93,
167, 30, 495, and 699, respectively. For three studies (Gordan et al.,
2016; Khajehzadeh et al., 2022; Koopialipoor et al., 2019), the slope
under static and dynamic conditions has been studies, for which five
factors have been considered. However, in the study (Khajehzadeh et al.,
2022), the five factors are slope height, slope gradient, cohesion, in­
ternal friction angle, and horizontal acceleration coefficient, and for
other two, the horizontal acceleration coefficient is replaced by the peak
ground acceleration. And for the study (Xue, 2017), only three factors
about the soil parameters have been considered, which are unit weigh,
cohesion, and internal friction angle. For four studies (Bui et al., 2020;
Luo et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2022; Safa et al., 2020), the data sets are from
the results by limit equilibrium method for the field data. And in two
studies (Bui et al., 2020; Luo et al., 2021), the same data sets have been
used which consider five factors (slope angle, bench height, unit weight,
cohesion, and internal friction angle) for slopes in an open-pit mine of
Vietnam. However, in the study (Safa et al., 2020), the data sets are from
the eco-protection slopes along the selected Guthrie Corridor
Expressway (GCE) stretch in Selangor, Malaysia, considering three soil
parameters (unit weight, effective cohesion, and effective internal fric­
tion angle at slice base). And in the study (Qin et al., 2022), the data sets
are from the field surveys on the open-pit mine slopes in Zhejiang
province of China, considering six factors (slope height, slope angle,
potential slip plane angle, cohesion, internal friction angle, and rock
density). For the study (Poso Jr. and de Jesus, 2022), the date sets from
the homogeneous earth dams consider five factors (soil type, unit
weight, cohesion, internal friction angle, and slope of homogenous earth
dam). At last, for the study (Shang et al., 2022), five factors are also
considered in the data sets form open-pit coal mine slopes, which are
bench height, slope angle, unit weight, cohesion, and internal friction
angle. Moreover, for the first study (Bui et al., 2020), the genetic algo­
rithm is applied to select the suitable parameters of M5Rules model. For
the second one (Gordan et al., 2016), the genetic algorithm was applied
to select the linking weights and biases of three-layer feed-forward
neural network whose structure was determined by the trail and error
method. And for third study (Khajehzadeh et al., 2022), the adaptive
sine cosine algorithm and pattern search is applied to adjust the weights
and biases of three-layer neural network whose structure was selected
by the trail and error method too. For the fourth one (Koopialipoor et al.,
2019), to compare, four hybrid intelligent methods (artificial neural
network with genetic algorithm, artificial neural network with imperi­
alist competitive algorithm, artificial neural network with particle
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

Table 8
Summary of studies by the hybrid intelligence methods.
Model Input Output Data set Data set source Type of study Citation
number

artificial neural network with genetic slope height, slope angle, cohesion, stability status 46 literature collection from Li and Liu,
algorithm internal friction angle, pore water published work 2004
pressure coefficient, unit weight
slope height, slope gradient, FOS 699 limit equilibrium analytical method Koopialipoor
cohesion, internal friction angle, method for designed et al., 2019
peak ground acceleration homogenous
slopes
slope angle, undrained shear dimensionless 630 finite-element numerical method Yuan and
strength of clayey soil, applied stability number analysis for designed Moayedi, 2020
surcharge, the ratio of foundation cohesive slope
distance from the slope to the
foundation length
slope angle, undrained shear FOS 630 finite-element numerical method Wang et al.,
strength of clayey soil, applied analysis for designed 2021
surcharge, the ratio of foundation cohesive slope
distance from the slope to the
foundation length
artificial neural network with particle slope height, slope gradient, FOS 699 limit equilibrium analytical method Gordan et al.,
swarm optimization cohesion, internal friction angle, method for designed 2016
peak ground acceleration homogenous
slopes
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, FOS 83 literature collection from Rukhaiyar
internal friction angle, pore water published work et al., 2018
pressure coefficient, unit weight
slope height, slope gradient, FOS 699 limit equilibrium analytical method Koopialipoor
cohesion, internal friction angle, method for designed et al., 2019
peak ground acceleration homogenous
slopes
slope angle, undrained shear dimensionless 630 finite-element numerical method Yuan and
strength of clayey soil, applied stability number analysis for designed Moayedi, 2020
surcharge, the ratio of foundation cohesive slope
distance from the slope to the
foundation length
density, cohesion, internal friction FOS 23 literature collection from Gong, 2021
angle, slope height, slope ratio, pore published work
water pressure coefficient, seismic
intensity
soil type, unit weight, cohesion, FOS 93 limit equilibrium analytical method Poso Jr. and de
internal friction angle, slope of the method for designed Jesus, 2022
homogenous earth dam slopes
least squares support vector machine slope height, slope angle, cohesion, FOS 31 literature collection from Li et al., 2015
with particle swarm optimization internal friction angle, pore water published work
pressure coefficient, unit weight
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, FOS 46 literature collection from Xue, 2017
internal friction angle, pore water published work
pressure coefficient, unit weight
unit weight, cohesion, internal FOS 10 limit equilibrium analytical method Xue, 2017
friction angle method for designed
homogenous
slopes
artificial neural network with imperialist slope height, slope gradient, FOS 699 limit equilibrium analytical method Koopialipoor
competitive algorithm cohesion, internal friction angle, method for designed et al., 2019
peak ground acceleration homogenous
slopes
slope angle, depth factor (the ratio of dimensionless 400 finite element numerical method Gao et al., 2020
first soil layer thickness to the slope stability number method for designed
height), undrained shear strength cohesive slope
ratio
artificial neural network with artificial slope height, slope gradient, FOS 699 limit equilibrium analytical method Koopialipoor
bee colony algorithm cohesion, internal friction angle, method for designed et al., 2019
peak ground acceleration homogenous
slopes
unit weight, effective cohesion and FOS 30 field investigations analytical method Safa et al.,
effective internal friction angle at and limit for highway slopes 2020
slice base equilibrium
method
genetic programming with genetic slope height, slope angle, cohesion, FOS 46 literature collection from Yang et al.,
algorithm internal friction angle, pore water published work 2004
pressure coefficient, unit weight
artificial neural network with slope height, slope angle, cohesion, FOS or stability 46 literature collection from Das et al., 2011
differential evolution internal friction angle, pore water status published work
pressure coefficient, unit weight
(continued on next page)

25
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

Table 8 (continued )
Model Input Output Data set Data set source Type of study Citation
number

support vector machine with particle slope height, slope angle, cohesion, stability status 46 literature collection from Xue et al., 2014
swarm optimization internal friction angle, pore water published work
pressure coefficient, unit weight
support vector machine with artificial slope height, slope aspect, slope stability status 75 field data site investigation Cheng and
bee colony algorithm form, slope gradient, formation for natural slopes Hoang, 2015a
type, angle between slope gradient
and stratigraphic, angle between
slope aspect and depositional trend,
inclination, rock mass volume, rock
mass size, variance in gradient,
excavation height of slope toe,
catchment area, vegetation coverage
thickness, vegetation coverage
percentage, maximum accumulated
typhoon rainfall
fuzzy k-nearest neighbor algorithm with slope height, slope gradient, slope stability status 211 field data site investigation Cheng and
firefly algorithm aspect, slope form, formation type, for slopes of Hoang, 2015b
angle between gradient and mountain roads
inclination, angle between slope
aspect and trend, vegetation
coverage thickness, vegetation
coverage percentage, rock mass
volume, rock mass size, excavation
height at slope toe, catchment area,
change of slope gradient due to toe
cutting, maximum ground
acceleration, maximum
accumulated rainfall
least squares support vector slope height, slope angle, cohesion, stability status 168 literature collection from Hoang and
classification with firefly algorithm internal friction angle, pore water published work Pham, 2016
pressure coefficient, unit weight
support vector machine with genetic slope height, slope angle, potential FOS 50 numerical method numerical method Zhang et al.,
algorithm sliding body height, angles of the for designed 2016
two weak joint planes, cross section twofold slope
area of the potential sliding body,
cohesion and internal friction angle
for two weak joint planes
logistic regression with firefly algorithm slope height, slope angle, cohesion, stability status 148 literature collection from Qi and Tang,
decision tree with firefly algorithm internal friction angle, pore water published work 2018a
random forest with firefly algorithm pressure coefficient, unit weight
gradient boosting machine with firefly
algorithm
support vector machine with firefly
algorithm
artificial neural network with firefly
algorithm
hybrid ensemble method using classifier slope height, slope angle, cohesion, stability status 168 literature collection from Qi and Tang,
ensembles (gaussian process internal friction angle, pore water published work 2018b
classification, quadratic discriminant pressure coefficient, unit weight
analysis, support vector machine,
artificial neural network, adaptive
boosted decision tree, and k-nearest
neighbour) with genetic algorithm
artificial neural network with slope angle, undrained shear dimensionless 630 finite-element numerical method Yuan and
biogeography-based optimization strength of clayey soil, applied stability number analysis for designed Moayedi, 2020
artificial neural network with ant colony surcharge, the ratio of foundation cohesive slope
optimization distance from the slope to the
artificial neural network with foundation length
evolutionary strategy
artificial neural network with
probability-based incremental
learning
M5Rules algorithm with genetic slope angle, bench height, unit FOS 450 limit equilibrium analytical method Bui et al., 2020
algorithm weight, cohesion, internal friction method for open pit mine
angle slopes
fuzzy artificial neural network unit weight, effective cohesion and FOS 30 field investigations analytical method Safa et al.,
effective internal friction angle at by limit for highway slopes 2020
slice base equilibrium
method
slope height, slope angle, potential FOS 167 field investigations analytical method Qin et al., 2022
slip plane angle, cohesion, internal by limit for open-pit mine
friction angle, rock density equilibrium slopes
method
(continued on next page)

26
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

Table 8 (continued )
Model Input Output Data set Data set source Type of study Citation
number

hybrid ensemble method using classifier slope height, slope angle, cohesion, stability status 150 finite element numerical method Kardani et al.,
ensembles (support vector classifier, k- internal friction angle, pore water training analysis for designed 2021
nearest neighbour, decision tree, pressure coefficient, unit weight data slopes
extreme gradient boosting, random literature
forest, linear discriminant analysis, 107 collection from
artificial neural network, logistic testing published work
regression, extremely random tree, data
naive bayes, and bagging classifier)
with artificial bee colony algorithm
artificial neural network with Harris slope angle, undrained shear FOS 630 finite element analytical method Moayedi et al.,
hawks’ optimization strength of clayey soil, applied simulation for designed 2021
surcharge, the ratio of foundation homogenous
distance from the slope to the slopes
foundation length
cubist algorithm with particle swarm slope angle, bench height, unit FOS 450 limit equilibrium analytical method Luo et al., 2021
optimization weight, cohesion, internal friction method for open pit mine
angle slopes
artificial neural network with slope angle, undrained shear FOS 630 finite element numerical method Foong and
equilibrium optimization strength of clayey soil, applied simulation for designed Moayedi, 2022
artificial neural network with vortex surcharge, the ratio of foundation cohesive slope
search algorithm distance from the slope to the
foundation length
artificial neural network with adaptive slope height, slope angle, internal FOS 189 limit equilibrium analytical method Khajehzadeh
sine cosine algorithm and pattern friction angle, cohesion, horizontal method for designed slope et al., 2022
search acceleration coefficient
radial basis function neural network bench height, slope angle, unit FOS 495 limit equilibrium analytical method Shang et al.,
with brainstorm optimization weight, cohesion, internal friction method for open-pit coal 2022
angle mine slopes
least squares support vector machine slope height, slope angle, cohesion, FOS 66 literature collection from Zeng et al.,
with gravitational search algorithm internal friction angle, pore water published work 2022
least squares support vector machine pressure coefficient, unit weight
with whale optimization algorithm
stacking ensemble learning model using slope height, slope angle, cohesion, FOS 210 literature collection from Sun et al.,
regression algorithms (decision tree, internal friction angle, pore water published work 2022a
support vector machine, nearest pressure coefficient, unit weight
neighbor, and random forest) with
Bayesian optimization
artificial neural network with undrained cohesive strength, slope FOS 630 finite element numerical method Mu’azu et al.,
teaching–learning-based optimization angle, the surcharge exerted on the analysis for designed 2023
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system footing, the ratio of setback distance cohesive slope
with teaching–learning-based
optimization
random forest with improved pelican slope height, slope angle, cohesion, stability status 210 literature collection from Li et al., 2023
optimization algorithm internal friction angle, pore water published work
pressure coefficient, unit weight

whose number of hidden neurons was determined according to the

previous study. And for the seventh one (Qin et al., 2022), the adaptive
neuro fuzzy inference system was used, in which, five-layer feed-for­
ward neural network was applied whose structure was determined by
the trail and error method, and the fuzzy set is used in its first layer. For
the eighth one (Safa et al., 2020), two hybrid intelligent methods
(artificial neural network with artificial bee colony algorithm and fuzzy
artificial neural network) have been applied, in which, artificial bee
colony algorithm is applied to adjust the weights and biases of three-
layer neural network whose structure was selected by the trail and
Fig. 17. General architecture of hybrid ensemble method of classi­
error method, and the fuzzy rules is used in the hidden layer of three-
fier ensembles.
layer neural network whose structure was also selected by the trail
and error method. And for the nineth study (Shang et al., 2022), the
swarm optimization, and artificial neural network with artificial bee
brainstorm optimization algorithm is applied to adjust the weights of
colony algorithm) have been applied, in which, four optimization
three-layer radial basis function neural network whose structure was
methods (genetic algorithm, imperialist competitive algorithm, particle
selected according to the previous study. At last, for the last one (Xue,
swarm optimization, and artificial bee colony algorithm) are applied to
2017), the parameters of least squares support vector machine have
select the suitable weights and biases of three-layer neural network
been selected by one modified particle swarm optimization.
whose structure was determined by the trail and error method. And, for
In another seven studies (Foong and Moayedi, 2022; Gao et al., 2020;
fifth study (Luo et al., 2021), the particle swarm optimization is applied
Moayedi et al., 2021; Mu’azu et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2021; Yuan and
to determine the hyper-parameters of cubist algorithm model, which
Moayedi, 2020; Zhang et al., 2016), based on the data sets from the
was designed based on the M5Rules model. In the sixth study (Poso Jr.
results of numerical method, the dimensionless stability number or FOS
and de Jesus, 2022), the particle swarm optimization has been applied to
of slopes have been estimated by different hybrid methods. For five
select the suitable weights and biases of three-layer neural network
studies (Foong and Moayedi, 2022; Moayedi et al., 2021; Mu’azu et al.,

27
W. Gao and S. Ge
2023; Wang et al., 2021; Yuan and Moayedi, 2020), the similar data sets
have been used whose numbers are 630 considering four factors (slope
angle, undrained shear strength of clayey soil, the fixed distributed load
on the mentioned foundation, and the ratio of foundation distance from
the slope to the foundation length). And most of them estimate the FOS
of slopes except one (Yuan and Moayedi, 2020) which estimates the
dimensionless stability number of slope. However, in the study (Yuan
and Moayedi, 2020), six hybrid intelligent methods have been applied
for comparison, which are artificial neural network with biogeography-
based optimization, artificial neural network with particle swarm opti­
mization, artificial neural network with genetic algorithm, artificial
neural network with evolutionary strategy, artificial neural network
with ant colony optimization, and artificial neural network with
probability-based incremental learning. For those six methods, the
linking weights and biases of neural network were optimized by the
biogeography-based optimization, particle swarm optimization, genetic
algorithm, evolutionary strategy, ant colony optimization, and
probability-based incremental learning, respectively. However, the
structure of the neural network was not given in the original paper. And
in the study (Foong and Moayedi, 2022), two hybrid intelligent methods
have been applied which are artificial neural network with equilibrium
optimization and artificial neural network with vortex search algorithm.
For those two methods, equilibrium optimization and vortex search al­
gorithm are used to adjust the weights and biases of three-layer neural
network whose structure was determined by the trail and error method.
And for two studies (Moayedi et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021), only one
hybrid method has been used, which are artificial neural network with
Harris hawks’ optimization and artificial neural network with genetic
algorithm, respectively. In those studies, the Harris hawks’ optimization
and genetic algorithm are used to adjust the weights and biases of three-
layer neural network whose structure was selected by the trail and error
method too. At last, in the study (Mu’azu et al., 2022), two hybrid
models were also constructed which are artificial neural network with
teaching–learning-based optimization and adaptive neuro-fuzzy infer­
ence system with teaching–learning-based optimization. For those two
models, the teaching–learning-based optimization was used to adjust the
parameters of the artificial neural network (i.e., its weights and biases)
and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (i.e., its membership func­
tion parameters) whose structures were all determined by the trail and
error method. Moreover, for the last two studies (Gao et al., 2020; Zhang
et al., 2016), different data sets are used which are 400 data considering
three factors (slope angle, depth factor (i.e., the ratio of first soil layer
thickness to slope height), and undrained shear strength ratio) and 50
data considering ten factors (slope height, slope angle, potential sliding
body height, angles of the two weak joint planes, cross section area of
the potential sliding body, and cohesions and internal friction angles for
two weak joint planes). And, in the first study, the hybrid intelligent
method of artificial neural network with imperialist competitive algo­
rithm was use to estimate the dimensionless stability number of soil
slope, and the second one estimates the FOS of rock slope using the
hybrid intelligent method of support vector machine with genetic al­
gorithm. In those two studies, the imperialist competitive algorithm was
applied to select the suitable weights and biases of three-layer neural
network whose structure was determined by the trail and error method,
and the genetic algorithm was applied to determine the parameters of
support vector machine.
At last, in two studies (Cheng and Hoang, 2015a; Cheng and Hoang,
2015b), to assess the typhoon-induced slope collapse, the filed data of 75
recorded slope cases in central region of Taiwan during typhoons Herb
and Nari and 211 slope cases in Highway No. 18 and No. 21 of Taiwan
during the typhoons Herb, Nari, and Toraji were utilized to estimate the
stability status (stable or collapsed) of rock slopes. For the first study, a
bee colony optimized support vector classifier was used to consider 15
influencing factors (slope height, slope aspect, slope form, slope
gradient, formation type, angle between slope gradient and strati­
graphic, angle between slope aspect and depositional trend, inclination,
28
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
rock mass volume, rock mass size, variance in gradient, excavation
height of slope toe, catchment area, vegetation coverage thickness,
vegetation coverage percentage, and maximum accumulated typhoon
rainfall), and for the second one, the hybrid intelligent method of fuzzy
k-nearest neighbor algorithm with firefly algorithm has been applied to
consider 16 slope attributes (slope height, slope gradient, slope aspect,
slope form, formation type, angle between gradient and inclination,
angle between slope aspect and trend, vegetation coverage thickness,
vegetation coverage percentage, rock mass volume, rock mass size,
excavation height at slope toe, catchment area, change of slope gradient
due to toe cutting, maximum ground acceleration, and maximum
accumulated rainfall). For two studies, the artificial bee colony algo­
rithm and firefly algorithm were applied to select the suitable hyper-
parameters of support vector classifier and fuzzy k-nearest neighbor
algorithm, respectively.
From above studies, most of them determine stability of soil slopes,
and only few determines stability of rock slopes. Moreover, most studies
estimate FOS of slopes, and only few ones study the stability status,
which is described by stable and unstable. However, only two studies
estimate the dimensionless stability number of slopes. In most studies,
the hybrid intelligent methods based on artificial neural network have
been used, in which, the different optimization methods were applied to
determine the suitable weights and biases for three-layer neural network
whose structure was selected by the trail and error method. And in some
other hybrid intelligent methods, the different optimization methods
were used to select the parameters of regression or classification
methods, such as support vector machine, k-nearest neighbor algorithm,
least squares support vector machine, M5Rules model, radial basis
function neural network, random forest, etc. However, one main
contribution of those studies is the hybrid ensemble method of classifier
ensembles which is the combination of the single intelligent classifiers,
and for which the suitable meta-classifier was determined by the intel­
ligent optimization method. Because many intelligence classifiers have
been combined, the performance of hybrid ensemble method is better
than that of other hybrid intelligent methods. However, the complexity
of this method is high. Moreover, another contribution of those studies is
the hybrid intelligent method based on the genetic programming. Using
this method, the explicit mathematical function of the FOS considering
some factors can be constructed. Compared with other methods, in
which only the implicit expression can be obtained, the explicit math­
ematical function can be used easily. However, it is a hard work to
construct the suitable mathematical function only based on data sets.
3.4. Studies by other intelligence method
Apart from above three main kinds of studies, some other intelli­
gence methods have also been applied to estimate the slope stability.
Those methods include naive bayes classifier, gaussian process, genetic
programming, multigene genetic programming, random forest, genetic
algorithm, ant colony clustering algorithm, minimax probability ma­
chine, gravitational search algorithm, gradient boosting machine, and
decision tree, etc. The main studies can be summarized as in Table 9.
From Table 9, there are ten studies (Bharti et al., 2021; Chebrolu
et al., 2020; Feng et al., 2018; Gao, 2015a; Kang et al., 2017; Lin et al.,
2018; Lin et al., 2022; Manouchehrian et al., 2014; Suman et al., 2016;
Zhou et al., 2019) using the data sets from literatures to estimate the
stability status (stable and unstable) or FOS of soil slopes considering six
factors (slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction angle, pore
water pressure coefficient, and unit weight). For those studies, the
numbers of data sets are 221, 46, 69, 46, 107, 211, 444, 103, 103, and 46
and 21, respectively. And in six studies (Bharti et al., 2021; Feng et al.,
2018; Gao, 2015a; Lin et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2019),
the stability status was estimated. For two studies (Feng et al., 2018; Lin
et al., 2018), the naive bayes classifier was used, and for comparison
with other methods, the random forest (a combinatorial classier algo­
rithm composed of many decision tree classication models) and
W. Gao and S. Ge
gravitational search algorithm are also used in the study (Lin et al.,
2018). For another two ones (Gao, 2015a; Zhou et al., 2019), the
abstraction ant colony clustering algorithm (one new clustering algo­
rithm from ant colony algorithm) and gradient boosting machine (one
most popular supervised machine learning technique for the regression
and classification problems) have been applied. And for the last two
studies (Bharti et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2022), two methods (random
forest and gradient boosting machine) are all applied to compare.
Moreover, in three studies (Chebrolu et al., 2020; Kang et al., 2017;
Manouchehrian et al., 2014), the FOS has been estimated by different
methods, such as Gaussian process, multigene genetic programming,
and genetic algorithm, respectively. For the study (Kang et al., 2017),
another two data sets from the results of limit equilibrium method for
one soil slope and one fill embankment resting on the clay layer whose
numbers are 80 and 65 are also used. And for the study (Manouchehrian
et al., 2014), the genetic algorithm was used to select and create many
possible regression models. At last, in the study (Suman et al., 2016),
two multigene genetic programming models have been constructed to
estimate the stability status and FOS of slope, and the results were
compared with those of functional network method.
There are four studies (Azarafza et al., 2020; Gao, 2015a; Qin et al.,
2023; Zhang et al., 2022) using the field data sets to estimate the sta­
bility status of rock slopes. For the first study, based on 200 rock slope
cases collected from field investigation in Iran considering some geo­
metric and geomechanical properties (slope height, slope angle, loca­
tion, geology, tectonostructural related zones, discontinuity condition,
characterisation of rock mass discontinuities, failure mode and mea­
surements, and sedimentary units), the stability status (uncertain status,
unstable and stable) was estimated by some artificial intelligent methods
(including naive bayes classifier, random forest, Gaussian process, and
decision tree). For the second study, using 36 slope cases of Three Gorges
reservoir area in China considering 14 factors (slope height, slope angle,
mechanical properties, features of structure surface, structural features,
stress state, groundwater, raining effects, weathering, loading, me­
chanical vibrations, blasting vibration, earthquake effects, and excava­
tion) from literature, the stability status described by six statuses (no
specific definition) has been estimated, and based on 15 slope cases from
Khosh-Yeylagh region of Iran considering 16 influence factors (slope
height, slope angle, mechanical properties, geology and lithology, intact
rock strength, faults and folds, previous instability, number of joint sets,
number of major joint directions of instability, weathering, joint
persistence, joint spacing, joint aperture, rainfall, hydraulic conditions,
and freeze and thaw) from literature, the stability status described by
five statuses (completely unstable, unstable, partially unstable, stable,
and completely stable) has been estimated too. For the third one, based
on the collected field data of 286 open-pit mine slopes in Zhejiang,
China, considering six factors (dip of potential failure plane, cohesion,
internal friction angle, rock density, slope angle, and slope height), the
stability status described as stable or failed of the slopes can be esti­
mated by the Gaussian process method. Finally, for the last study, using
786 landslide cases in Yunyang County, Chongqing, China considering
seven factors, i.e. front edge and back edge elevations, slope height,
slope angle, inclination angle, dip direction, and landslide volume, the
slope stability status which can be categorized into three groups, i.e.
stable, basically stable, and less stable for the landslide can be estimated
by the random forest mothed.
Moreover, there are other three studies (He et al., 2018; Karir et al.,
2022; Mahmoodzadeh et al., 2022) using the data sets from the results of
the numerical method to estimate the FOS of the slope. For the first
study, 25 data sets considering six factors (wet/dry cycle number,
shallow soil penetration coefficient, slope height, slope angle, precipi­
tation intensity, and precipitation period) have been provided using the
orthogonal design method based on the numerical model for the residual
grey expansive soil slopes along Nanyou highway in southern China.
And based on the obtained data sets, Gaussian process method was
applied. And for the second study, based on the numerical studies on two
29
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
kinds of slopes (residual soil slope and overburden mine dump slope)
whose numbers are 400 and 506, two group of data sets have been ob­
tained. For the first one, nine factors including slope height, slope angle,
depth of residual soil layer and cohesion, young’s modulus and internal
friction angle of both residual soil and weathered bedrock are consid­
ered. And for the second one, eight factors (height of bench at dragline
sitting level, height of bench between coal-rib roof and dragline sitting
level, berm width at dragline sitting level, angle of the face of bench at
dragline sitting level, slope angle of bench between coal-rib roof and
dragline sitting level, coal-rib height, and internal friction angle and
cohesion of dump material) have been considered. Moreover, using
those date sets, two methods (random forest and gradient boosting
machine) were applied for comparison. At last, for the third study, based
on the results by the PLAXIS software for 327 slope cases in Iran with
various geometric and shear strength parameters, considering six factors
(unit weight, cohesion, internal friction angle, slope angle, slope height,
and pore pressure ratio), two methods (including Gaussian process
method and decision tree) were applied for comparison too.
And there are also two studies (Moayedi, 2021; Sahoo et al., 2022)
using the data sets from the results of the limit equilibrium method to
estimate the dimensionless stability number and FOS of the slopes by the
genetic programming and random forest method, respectively. For the
first one, using computer software OptumG2 based on limit equilibrium
method to compute the dimensionless stability number of designed
cohesive slopes considering three factors (slope angle, undrained shear
strength ratio, and the ratio of both soil layer thicknesses to slope’s top
layer height), the data sets containing 400 data were obtained. And for
the second one, using SLIDE software based on limit equilibrium method
to compute the FOS of designed soil slopes considering three factors
(cohesion, internal friction angle, and unit weight), the data sets con­
taining 1010 data were obtained.
At last, in two studies (Gao, 2015a; Kumar et al., 2016), using the
data sets from literatures, stability status of rock slopes has been esti­
mated by different methods (abstraction ant colony clustering algorithm
and minimax probability machine (a discriminant classifier derived
from probabilistic framework)). For the first study, using 22 slope cases
of wedge failure from literature considering eight factors (slope height,
slope angle, unit weight, two internal friction angles of two joint sets,
two cohesion forces of two joint sets, and angle of the intersection of two
joint sets), the stability status described by stable and unstable has been
estimated. And for the second one, based on 53 slope cases from liter­
ature considering five factors (slope height, slope inclination, cohesion,
internal friction angle, and bulk density), the stability status described
by stable and unstable has been determined. However, different from
above studies, 77 data sets from literature were also used to estimate the
stability status of soil slope (stable and unstable) in the study (Wang
et al., 2023). For the data sets, only five factors have been considered,
which are slope angle, slope height, internal friction angle, cohesion,
and unit weight. And in this study, three methods (naive bayes classifier,
random forest, and decision tree) are applied for comparison.
From above studies, the stability of soil slopes has been estimated in
most studies, and only few ones determine the stability of rock slopes.
And most of them estimate the stability status. A few ones are for FOS
and only one is for dimensionless stability number. And for most studies,
the stability status was described by two states, which were stable and
unstable. But only for few studies on rock slopes, for the complicated
stability status, it was described by three (stable, unstable and uncertain
status) or above states such as five statuses (completely unstable, un­
stable, partially unstable, stable, and completely stable). Moreover, most
studies use the random classification methods, such as naive bayes
classifier, gradient boosting machine, abstraction ant colony clustering
algorithm, random forest, decision tree, and minimax probability ma­
chine, etc. In those classification methods, most of them use the super­
vised learning, for which, the classification number should be known
beforehand. And only a few uses the unsupervised learning, such as
abstraction ant colony clustering algorithm which can classify the data
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

Table 9
Summary of studies by other intelligence methods.
Model Input Output Data set Data set source Type of study Citation
number

naive bayes slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction stability status 69 literature collection from Feng et al., 2018
classifier angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction stability status 107 literature collection from Lin et al., 2018
angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work
slope height, slope angle, location, geology, stability status 200 field data field investigation Azarafza et al.,
tectonostructural related zones, discontinuity for sedimentary rock 2020
condition, characterisation of rock mass slopes
discontinuities, failure mode and measurements,
sedimentary units
slope angle, slope height, internal friction angle, stability status 77 literature collection from Wang et al., 2023
cohesion, unit weight published work
Gaussian process slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction FOS 80 and limit analytical method Kang et al., 2017
angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight 65 equilibrium for designed slopes
46 and method collection from
21 literature published work
wet/dry cycle number, shallow soil penetration FOS 25 numerical numerical method He et al., 2018
coefficient, slope height, slope angle, precipitation method for highway slopes
intensity, precipitation period
slope height, slope angle, location, geology, stability status 200 field data field investigation Azarafza et al.,
tectonostructural related zones, discontinuity for sedimentary rock 2020
condition, characterisation of rock mass slopes
discontinuities, failure mode and measurements,
sedimentary units
unit weight, cohesion, internal friction angle, slope FOS 327 numerical numerical method Mahmoodzadeh
angle, slope height, pore pressure ratio simulation for real slopes et al., 2022
dip of potential failure plane, cohesion, internal stability status 286 field data field investigation Qin et al., 2023
friction angle, rock density, slope angle, slope height for open-pit mine
slopes
multigene genetic slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction FOS or stability 103 literature collection from Suman et al., 2016
programming angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight status published work
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction FOS 46 literature collection from Chebrolu et al.,
angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work 2020
genetic slope angle, undrained shear strength ratio, depth dimensionless 400 limit analytical method Moayedi, 2021
programming factor (the ratio of both soil layer thicknesses to stability number equilibrium for designed
slope’s top layer height) method cohesive slopes
random forest slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction stability status 107 literature collection from Lin et al., 2018
angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work
slope height, slope angle, location, geology, stability status 200 field data field investigation Azarafza et al.,
tectonostructural related zones, discontinuity for sedimentary rock 2020
condition, characterisation of rock mass slopes
discontinuities, failure mode and measurements,
sedimentary units
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction stability status 221 literature collection from Bharti et al., 2021
angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work
cohesion, internal friction angle, unit weight FOS 1010 limit analytical method Sahoo et al., 2022
equilibrium for designed soil
method slopes
slope height, slope angle, depth of residual soil layer FOS 400 numerical numerical method Karir et al., 2022
and cohesion, young’s modulus and internal friction simulation for residual soil
angle of both residual soil and weathered bedrock slope
height of bench at dragline sitting level, height of FOS 506 numerical method
bench between coal-rib roof and dragline sitting level, for overburden
berm width at dragline sitting level, angle of the face mine dump slope
of bench at dragline sitting level, slope angle of bench
between coal-rib roof and dragline sitting level, coal-
rib height, internal friction angle and cohesion of
dump material
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction stability status 444 literature collection from Lin et al., 2022
angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work
front edge and back edge elevations, slope height, stability status 786 field data field investigation Zhang et al., 2022
slope angle, inclination angle, dip direction, landslide for real landslide
volume cases
slope angle, slope height, internal friction angle, stability status 77 literature collection from Wang et al., 2023
cohesion, unit weight published work
genetic algorithm slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction FOS 103 literature collection from Manouchehrian
angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work et al., 2014
abstraction ant slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction stability status 46 literature collection from Gao, 2015a
colony clustering angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work
algorithm slope height, slope angle, unit weight, two internal stability status 22 literature
friction angles of two joint sets, two cohesion forces of
two joint sets, angle of the intersection of two joint
sets
(continued on next page)

30
W. Gao and S. Ge Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400

Table 9 (continued )
Model Input Output Data set Data set source Type of study Citation
number

slope height, slope angle, mechanical properties, stability status 36 literature

features of structure surface, structural features, stress
state, groundwater, raining effects, weathering,
loading, mechanical vibrations, blasting vibration,
earthquake effects, excavation
slope height, slope angle, mechanical properties, stability status 15 literature
geology and lithology, intact rock strength, faults and
folds, previous instability, number of joint sets,
number of major joint directions of instability,
weathering, joint persistence, joint spacing, joint
aperture, rainfall, hydraulic conditions, freeze and
thaw
minimax slope height, slope inclination, cohesion, internal stability status 53 literature collection from Kumar et al., 2016
probability friction angle, bulk density published work
machine
gravitational search slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction stability status 107 literature collection from Lin et al., 2018
algorithm angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work
gradient boosting slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction stability status 221 literature collection from Zhou et al., 2019
machine angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction stability status 221 literature collection from Bharti et al., 2021
angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work
slope height, slope angle, depth of residual soil layer FOS 400 numerical numerical method Karir et al., 2022
and cohesion, young’s modulus and internal friction simulation for residual soil
angle of both residual soil and weathered bedrock slope
height of bench at dragline sitting level, height of FOS 506 numerical method
bench between coal-rib roof and dragline sitting level, for overburden
berm width at dragline sitting level, angle of the face mine dump slope
of bench at dragline sitting level, slope angle of bench
between coal-rib roof and dragline sitting level, coal-
rib height, internal friction angle and cohesion of
dump material
slope height, slope angle, cohesion, internal friction stability status 444 literature collection from Lin et al., 2022
angle, pore water pressure coefficient, unit weight published work
decision tree slope height, slope angle, location, geology, stability status 200 field data field investigation Azarafza et al.,
tectonostructural related zones, discontinuity for sedimentary rock 2020
condition, characterisation of rock mass slopes
discontinuities, failure mode and measurements,
sedimentary units
unit weight, cohesion, internal friction angle, slope FOS 327 numerical numerical method Mahmoodzadeh
angle, slope height, pore pressure ratio simulation for real slopes et al., 2022
slope angle, slope height, internal friction angle, stability status 77 literature collection from Wang et al., 2023
cohesion, unit weight published work

without known its classification number beforehand. Therefore, this
method can be applied in real engineering applications easily and sim­
ply, which can be taken as one main contribution of these studies.
However, some regression methods have been used too, such as genetic
algorithm, multigene genetic programming, and gaussian process
regression. For those regression methods, the genetic algorithm and
multigene genetic programming can construct one explicit mathemat­
ical function, which can be used easily.
Analysis the studies on slope stability evaluation by artificial intel­
ligence methods, it can be found that all three stability indexes can be
estimated. Because the stability status and FOS can be used to describe
the slope stability easily and simply in real applications, most studies
estimate the stability status or FOS, and only a few estimates the
dimensionless stability number. Moreover, because the influence factors
on the soil slopes are simple, most studies are on the soil slopes
considering six main factors, and its stability status is described gener­
ally by two states, which were stable and unstable. However, for its
complexity of rock slope, more influence factors should be considered,
and its stability status should be described by more states, such as three
ones or above. For example, three states can be represented by stable,
unstable and uncertain status, and the five statuses can be represented
by completely unstable, unstable, partially unstable, stable, and
completely stable. Because FOS and dimensionless stability number are
the quantitative descriptions of slope stability, to estimate them, the
used artificial intelligence method is generally the regression method.
However, for the qualitative description of slope stability by stability
status, the used artificial intelligence method to estimate it belongs to
the classification method. Therefore, the FOS and dimensionless stabil­
ity number are generally computed by the theoretical method and nu­
merical method, and while, the stability status is generally determined
by the engineering analogy method and empirical method.
At last, because the artificial neural network is widely used in the
regression and classification problems, and can be used easily, thus, in
above four kinds of studies, the artificial neural network method is the
mostly widely used one, and is also the firstly used one. However, for a
typical optimization problem to select the linking weights and biases of
artificial neural network, the gradient descent method used in tradi­
tional back-propagation algorithm is generally used. Because the back-
propagation algorithm will get a local minimum with a certain proba­
bility, some intelligent optimization methods have been used to replace
the back-propagation algorithm, and one kind of hybrid intelligence
method based on artificial neural network has been proposed. Moreover,
it is a hard work to select the suitable structure of artificial neural
network. Generally, the three-layer neural network whose number of
hidden neurons is selected by the trial and error method is applied.
However, it is a very time consume work and the suitable structure
cannot be guaranteed by the trial and error method. Therefore, an
important trial is using other intelligent optimization methods such as
Harris hawks’ optimization to select the suitable structure of artificial
neural network, although its computation is complex. Moreover, to
avoid the hard work of determination the structure of artificial neural
network, the support vector machine with the fixed structure has been

31
W. Gao and S. Ge
applied, and for the easy use with the small data sets, it has become
another widely used one. Apart from artificial neural network and
support vector machine, some other random classification and regres­
sion methods have also been applied. However, for those methods
including support vector machine, it is a very hard work to determine
their hyper-parameters. To solve this problem, the intelligent optimi­
zation methods can be used, and thus, another kind of hybrid intelli­
gence methods has been proposed and widely used. Difference from
above two kinds of hybrid intelligence methods which is the combina­
tion of one single intelligent method with the intelligent optimization
method, the last kind of hybrid intelligence method is the hybrid
ensemble method of classifier ensembles which is the combination from
some base classifiers, and for which the suitable meta-classifier can be
determined by intelligent optimization method. Because many intelli­
gence classifiers have been combined, the performance of this hybrid
ensemble method is better than that of the single artificial intelligence
methods. However, the complexity of the hybrid intelligence method is
high. The statistics for four kinds of the studies is shown in Fig. 18.
From Fig. 18, the studies using artificial neural network are the most
ones, and follows by the studies using hybrid intelligence method. And
nowadays, the support vector machine method and other intelligence
method are the least used methods.
Analysis the above studies, the comparison of four kinds of studies
can be summarized in Table 10.
From Table 10, it can be found that, the principles of support vector
machine method and artificial neural network method are similar which
are all construction the map relationship of influence factors and sta­
bility indexes. And only the implicit relationship can be constructed by
them. To construct the map relationship well, large number of data sets
is needed for the artificial neural network method, nevertheless, the
support vector machine method can construct the map relationship
based on small number of data sets. Moreover, for the artificial neural
network method, the network structure should be determined before­
hand for most of them which is a hard work, therefore, the simple
network structure selected by the trail and error method has been used
widely. However, the model structure of support vector machine
method can be determined by its algorithm easily. Because the structure
is more complex, there are more parameters for the artificial neural
network method than those for the support vector machine method.
However, comparison with the support vector machine method, because
the artificial neural network method is used more earlier and studied
more deeply, its operation is more convenient. Similar as the support
vector machine method and artificial neural network method, some
other random classification methods or random regression methods
have also been applied. The essence of those artificial intelligence
methods is as same as that of support vector machine method and arti­
ficial neural network method. For the fast development of artificial in­
telligence methods, the development of studies by the new methods is
promising. And the performance of some new artificial intelligence
methods is better than that of the support vector machine method and
artificial neural network method. Moreover, comparison with the sup­
port vector machine method and artificial neural network method, in
which, only the implicit relationship can be constructed, some random
regression methods can construct the explicit mathematical function
which can be used in real engineering easily. However, for the complex
algorithm of some new artificial intelligence methods, their operation is
inconvenient and their application is somewhat hard too. At last, com­
parison with the single artificial intelligence method, for combing the
advantages of some single artificial intelligence methods, the perfor­
mance of hybrid intelligence method is better, and it can be used for
more complicated problems. And by combing different artificial intel­
ligence methods, new hybrid intelligence method can be created, and
thus, the development of studies by the hybrid intelligence method is
fast. Moreover, some hybrid intelligence methods can construct the
explicit mathematical function. However, for combing of some single
artificial intelligence methods, the model of hybrid intelligence method
32
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
is complex, and thus, its operation is inconvenient and there are many
parameters to be determined beforehand. Therefore, the application of
the hybrid intelligence method is not convenient.
In summary, from analysis of above four kinds of studies, it can be
found that, the new development on slope stability evaluation by arti­
ficial intelligence methods should be application the new hybrid intel­
ligence methods or new artificial intelligence methods whose
performance is suitable, controlling parameters are few, and the oper­
ation is convenient. Moreover, for the current hybrid intelligence
methods based on artificial neural network, different intelligent opti­
mization methods were applied to adjust the weights and biases of
neural network whose structure was selected by the trail and error
method. Therefore, one development should be using the hybrid intel­
ligence methods based on artificial neural network whose weights,
biases, and structure were all determined by the intelligent optimization
methods. And for the regression problems which were the evaluation of
FOS and dimensionless stability number, using the artificial intelligence
method which can construct the explicit mathematical function is a
promising development. At last, the study on the complicated rock slope
stability evaluation by new hybrid ensemble method should also be a
new development direction.
4. Discussions and conclusions
For preventing landslide disasters caused by the slope collapse,
investigation the slope stability is a long-standing research topic. For its
good performance, the studies on slope stability based on the artificial
intelligence methods have become the hot topics in this field. In this
study, the numerous studies on the analysis of slope stability by the
artificial intelligence methods have been reviewed according to two
types, which are computation of slope stability and evaluation of slope
stability.
For the studies on slope stability computation by the artificial in­
telligence methods, there are three main parts, which are description the
initial slip surface, computation FOS, and selection the slip surface with
minimum FOS. For the first part, the circular or non-circular initial slip
surfaces are described by different methods. For the second part, the FOS
of generated slip surfaces are computed by the analytical or numerical
methods. For the last one, the artificial intelligence method which is the
global optimization algorithm is applied to determine the critical slip
surface (the slip surface with minimum FOS). Because the non-circular
slip surface can comprise the circular slip surface and three-
dimensional slip surface cannot be described easily, most works study
the two-dimensional non-circular slip surface. Although some different
methods were proposed to describe the two-dimensional non-circular
slip surface, the typical method (Cheng et al., 2007a) and its variants, in
which the feasible slip surfaces can be generated easily, have been used
widely. Because the limit equilibrium method which is an analytical
method can be used easily and combined with optimization algorithm
Fig. 18. Statistical results on studies of slope stability evaluation by intelli­
gence methods.
W. Gao and S. Ge
Table 10
Comparison of four kinds of studies on slope stability evaluation by artificial intelligence methods.
Studies Principle
studies by artificial construction the map relationship of factors
neural network method and indexes by block box model
studies by support vector construction the map relationship of factors
machine method and indexes by the statistical learning theory
studies by hybrid combing some single intelligence methods
intelligence method
studies by other random classification methods, random
intelligence methods regression methods
simply, most studies apply it to compute the FOS. Finally, according to
the used artificial intelligence methods, the studies of this field can be
subdivided into four kinds, which are studies by the quasi-physical in­
telligence methods, studies by the simulated evolutionary methods,
studies by the swarm intelligence methods, and ones by the hybrid in­
telligence methods. In those studies, the simulated evolutionary method
was the firstly used one, and the hybrid intelligence method was the
latest used method. Moreover, the swarm intelligence method is the
mostly widely used one, and follows by the studies using simulated
evolutionary method and those using quasi-physical intelligence
method. And the hybrid intelligence method is the least used one.
Analysis the studies on slope stability computation by artificial in­
telligence methods, the advantages of this kinds of studies can be sum­
marized as follows,
(1) The critical slip surface of slope can be searched in the global
scope, and no restriction on the slip surface is needed.
(2) All types of slopes (including rock slope and soil slope) can be
researched.
(3) All methods (including analytical and numerical methods) can be
used to compute FOS.
(4) Many new artificial intelligence methods have been proposed and
can be applied in this filed, especially for the swarm intelligence
methods and the quasi-physical intelligence methods.
(5) Some typical methods to describe the two-dimensional non-cir­
cular slip surface have been proposed.
However, the disadvantages of this kinds of studies can also be
summarized as follows,
(1) Most studies researched the two-dimensional slope stability,
which cannot describe the real landslide well.
(2) Many controlling parameters should be determined beforehand,
especially for the hybrid intelligence methods, which is a very hard work
in real applications.
(3) It is not an easy work to generate the admissible slip surface each
time.
(4) The computational efficiency is low at some times.
(5) The mathematical foundations for some new artificial intelli­
gence methods should be improved.
Therefore, the new developments on slope stability computation by
the artificial intelligence methods should be summarized as follows,
a. The general method to generate the feasible two-dimensional non-
circular slip surface, which can be used easily and simply.
b. New swarm intelligence method or quasi-physical intelligence
method whose performance is suitable, controlling parameters are few,
and the operation is convenient.
c. The suitable method to generate the feasible three-dimensional
slip surface, and the general method to compute FOS of the three-
dimensional slope.
For the studies on slope stability evaluation by the artificial intelli­
gence method, the relationship of influence factors and the stability
indexes (FOS, stability number, and stability status) of the slope has
been described by the block box model of the artificial intelligent
method. According to the used artificial intelligence methods, the
studies of this field can also be subdivided into four kinds, which are
studies by artificial neural network methods, studies by support vector
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
Advantage Disadvantage
convenient operation, easy application implicit relationship, large number of data
sets, determination structure beforehand
small number of data sets, less parameters, implicit relationship, inconvenient
determination structure by algorithm operation
good performance, many new methods, construction inconvenient operation, too many
explicit mathematical function using some methods parameters
many new methods, construction explicit inconvenient operation for some methods
mathematical function using some methods
machine methods, studies by hybrid intelligence methods, and ones by
other intelligence methods. Generally, for evaluation FOS and stability
number, the regression method was used, and the classification method
was used for the stability status evaluation. And, because the FOS and
stability status were used in real applications widely, most studies
researched on the FOS and stability status of slopes. Moreover, in those
studies, the artificial neural network method is the mostly widely used
one, and follows by the studies by the hybrid intelligence method. And
nowadays, the support vector machine method and other intelligence
method are least used methods. Moreover, the artificial neural network
method was also the firstly used one.
Analysis the studies on slope stability evaluation by the artificial
intelligence methods, the advantages of this kinds of studies can be
summarized as follows,
(1) All types of slopes (including rock slope and soil slope) can be
researched.
(2) All influence factors can be considered.
(3) All stability indexes can be estimated.
(4) The operation is convenient and the application is easy.
(5) Many new artificial intelligence methods have been proposed and
can be used in this filed, especially for the hybrid intelligence methods.
However, the disadvantages of this kinds of studies can also be
summarized as follows,
(1) It is a very hard work to select enough suitable data sets.
(2) Some influence factors are random and fuzzy, and cannot be
described easily.
(3) Many controlling parameters should be determined beforehand,
especially for the hybrid intelligence methods, which is a hard work in
real applications.
(4) The number of slope stability status must be determined be­
forehand, but sometimes it is a very hard work (Gao, 2015a).
(5) The relationship constructed by most artificial intelligence
methods is an implicit function, and sometimes it cannot be applied
conveniently.
For combing the advantages of some single artificial intelligence
methods, the performance of the hybrid intelligence method was better,
and it can be applied for the complicated problems. Therefore, the new
development on slope stability evaluation by the artificial intelligence
methods should be using the new hybrid intelligence method or other
new artificial intelligence methods whose performance is suitable,
controlling parameters are few, and the operation is convenient. More­
over, the studies on the stability evaluation of the complicated rock
slopes by new hybrid ensemble methods should be another new devel­
opment direction. And the development of the artificial intelligence
method which can be used well only based on the limited data sets is also
a new direction. For using easily in real application, development the
method to construct the suitable explicit mathematical function to
describe the relationship of influence factors and the slope stability in­
dexes should be the future work. Finally, to describe the complicated
influence factors, some mathematical methods to deal with the random
and fuzzy information should be developed and applied in this field. And
to solve the problem of unknown number of slope stability status, the
method to deal with the data sets with unknown stability status number
should be developed too.
33
W. Gao and S. Ge
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Wei Gao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Shuangshuang
Ge: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Data curation, Software,
Validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
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.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
Abdalla, J. A., Attom, M. F., & Hawileh, R. (2015). Prediction of minimum factor of
safety against slope failure in clayey soils using artificial neural network.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 73, 5463–5477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-
3800-x
Ahangar-Asr, A., Faramarzi, A., & Javadi, A. A. (2010). A new approach for prediction of
the stability of soil and rock slopes. Engineering with Computers, 27(7), 878–893.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02644401011073700
Ahour, M., Hataf, N., & Azar, E. (2020). A mathematical model based on artificial neural
networks to predict the stability of rock slopes using the generalized hoek-brown
failure criterion. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 38, 587–604. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10706-019-01049-y
Arai, K., & Tagyo, K. (1985). Determination of noncircular slip surfaces giving the
minimum factor of safety in slope stability analysis. Soils and Foundations, 25, 43–51.
https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.25.43
Atashpaz-Gargari, E., & Lucas, C. (2007, September). Imperialist competitive algorithm: An
algorithm for optimization inspired by imperialistic competition. Presentation at IEEE
Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Singapore.
Azarafza, M., Nanehkaran, Y. A., Rajabion, L., Akgün, H., Rahnamarad, J.,
Derakhshani, R., & Raoof, A. (2020). Application of the modified Q-slope
classification system for sedimentary rock slope stability assessment in Iran.
Engineering Geology, 264, Article 105349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2019.105349
Bai, T., Hu, X. D., & Gu, F. (2019). Practice of searching a noncircular critical slip surface
in a slope with soil variability. International Journal of Geomechanics, 19(3),
04018199. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001350
Bai, T., Qiu, T., Huang, X. M., & Li, C. (2014). Locating global critical slip surface using
the Morgenstern-Price method and optimization technique. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 14(2), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0000312
Bhandary, R. P., Krishnamoorthy, A., & Rao, A. U. (2019). Stability analysis of slopes
using finite element method and genetic algorithm. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 37, 1877–1889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0730-5
Bharti, J. P., Mishra, P., Moorthy, U., Sathishkumar, V. E., Cho, Y., & Samui, P. (2021).
Slope stability analysis using Rf, Gbm, Cart, Bt and Xgboost. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 39, 3741–3752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-021-01721-
2 Deng, C., Hu, H., Zhang, T. L., & Chen, J. L. (2020). Rock slope stability analysis and
Bhattacharjya, R. K. (2020). Efficiency of binary coded genetic algorithm in stability
analysis of an earthen slope. In F. Bennis, & R. Bhattacharjya (Eds.), Nature-Inspired
Methods for Metaheuristics Optimization, Modeling and Optimization in Science and
Technologies (vol 16, pp. 323–334). Springer.
Birbil, S. I., & Fang, S. C. (2003). An electromagnetism-like mechanism for global
optimization. Journal of Global Optimization, 25(3), 263–282. https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1022452626305
Blum, C., & Merkle, D. (2008). Swarm intelligence-introduction and applications. Springer-
Verlag.
Bolton, H. P. J., Heymann, G., & Groenwold, A. A. (2003). Global search for critical
failure surface in slope stability analysis. Engineering Optimization, 35(1), 51–65.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215031000064749
Bui, X. N., Muazu, M. A., & Nguyen, H. (2020). Optimizing Levenberg–Marquardt
backpropagation technique in predicting factor of safety of slopes after two-
dimensional OptumG2 analysis. Engineering with Computers, 36, 941–952. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00741-0
Cen, W. J., Luo, J. R., Yu, J. S., & Rahman, M. S. (2020). Slope stability analysis using
genetic simulated annealing algorithm in conjunction with finite element method.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 24(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-
020-2051-5
Chakraborty, A., & Goswami, D. (2017). Prediction of slope stability using multiple linear
regression (MLR) and artificial neural network (ANN). Arabian Journal of
Geosciences, 10, 385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-017-3167-x
34
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
Chauhan, V. K., Dahiya, K., & Sharma, A. (2019). Problem formulations and solvers in
linear SVM: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 52(2), 803–855. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10462-018-9614-6
Chebrolu, A., Sasmal, S. K., Behera, R. N., & Das, S. K. (2020). Prediction of factor of
safety for slope stability using advanced artificial intelligence techniques. In
R. V. Rao, & J. Taler (Eds.), Advanced engineering optimization through intelligent
techniques, advances in intelligent systems and computing (vol. 949, pp. 173–181).
Springer.
Chen, W. W., Shen, Z. P., Wang, J. A., & Tsai, F. (2015). Scripting STABL with PSO for
analysis of slope stability. Neurocomputing, 148, 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.neucom.2012.10.048
Chen, Z. Y. (1992). Random trials used in determining global minimum factors of safety
of slope. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29, 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1139/t92-
026
Chen, Z. Y., & Shao, C. M. (1988). Evaluation of minimum factor of safety in slope
stability analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25, 735–748. https://doi.org/
10.1139/t88-084
Cheng, M. Y., & Hoang, N. D. (2015a). Typhoon-induced slope collapse assessment using
a novel bee colony optimized support vector classifier. Natural Hazards, 78,
1961–1978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1813-8
Cheng, M. Y., & Hoang, N. D. (2015b). A Swarm-Optimized Fuzzy Instance-based
Learning approach for predicting slope collapses in mountain roads. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 76, 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.12.022
Cheng, Y. M. (2007). Global optimization analysis of slope stability by simulated
annealing with dynamic bounds and dirac function. Engineering Optimization, 39(1),
17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03052150600916294
Cheng, Y. M. (2009). Modified harmony methods for slope stability problems. In
Z. W. Geem (Ed.), Music-inspired harmony search algorithm, SCI 191 (pp. 141–162).
Springer-Verlag.
Cheng, Y. M., & Lau, C. K. (2008). Slope Stability analysis and stabilization-new methods and
insight. Taylor & Francis.
Cheng, Y. M., Li, L., & Chi, S. C. (2007a). Performance studies on six heuristic global
optimization methods in the location of critical failure surface. Computers and
Geotechnics, 34, 462–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.01.004
Cheng, Y. M., Li, L., Chi, S., & Wei, W. B. (2007b). Particle swarm optimization algorithm
for the location of the critical non-circular failure surface in two-dimensional slope
stability analysis. Computers and Geotechnics, 34, 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compgeo.2006.10.012
Cheng, Y. M., Li, L., Chi, S., & Wei, W. B. (2008a). Determination of the critical slip
surface using artificial fish swarms algorithm. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134(2), 244–251. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2008)134:2(244)
Cheng, Y. M., Li, L., Lansivaara, T., Chi, S. C., & Sun, Y. J. (2008b). An improved
harmony search minimization algorithm using different slip surface generation
methods for slope stability analysis. Engineering Optimization, 40(2), 95–115. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03052150701618153
Cheng, Y. M., Li, L., Sun, Y. J., & Au, S. K. (2012). A coupled particle swarm and harmony
search optimization algorithm for difficult geotechnical problems. Structural &
Multidisciplinary Optimization, 45(4), 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-
011-0694-z
Choobbasti, A. J., Farrokhzad, F., & Barari, A. (2009). Prediction of slope stability using
artificial neural network (case study: Noabad, Mazandaran, Iran). Arabian Journal of
Geosciences, 2, 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-009-0035-3
Daftaribesheli, A., Ataei, M., & Sereshki, F. (2011). Assessment of rock slope stability
using the Fuzzy Slope Mass Rating (FSMR) system. Applied Soft Computing, 11(8),
4465–4473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2011.08.032
Das, S. K., Biswal, R. K., Sivakugan, N., & Das, B. (2011). Classification of slopes and
prediction of factor of safety using differential evolution neural networks.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 64, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-
0839-1
charts based on hybrid online sequential extreme learning machine model. Earth
Science Informatics, 13, 729–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-020-00458-5
Ding, J. Y., Zhou, J. F., Cai, W., & Zheng, D. C. (2021). A modified hybrid algorithm
based on black hole and differential evolution algorithms to search for the critical
probabilistic slip surface of slopes. Computers and Geotechnics, 129, Article 103902.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103902
Erol, O. K., & Eksin, I. (2006). A new optimization method: Big Bang-Big Crunch.
Advances in Engineering Software, 37, 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
advengsoft.2005.04.005
Erzin, Y., & Cetin, T. (2012). The use of neural networks for the prediction of the critical
factor of safety of an artificial slope subjected to earthquake forces. Scientia Iranica A,
19(2), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2012.02.008
Erzin, Y., & Cetin, T. (2013). The prediction of the critical factor of safety of
homogeneous finite slopes using neural networks and multiple regressions.
Computers & Geosciences, 51, 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cageo.2012.09.003
Fakir, M., & Ferentinou, M. (2017, October). A holistic open pit mine slope stability index
using artificial neural networks. Presentation at the meeting of the AfriRock 2017 Rock
Mechanics for Africa, Cape Town.
Faramarzi, A., Heidarinejad, M., Stephens, B., & Mirjalili, S. (2020). Equilibrium
optimizer: A novel optimization algorithm. Knowledge-Based Systems, 191, Article
105190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105190
Farshidfar, N., Keshavarz, A., & Mirhosseini, S. M. (2020). Pseudo-static seismic analysis
of reinforced soil slopes using the horizontal slice method. Arabian Journal of
Geosciences, 13, 283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-5269-0
W. Gao and S. Ge
Fatty, A., Li, A. J., & Chen, L. H. (2022). Recurrent neural network based IOS mobile
applications for slope safety assessment. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, online..
https://doi.org/10.1109/MCE.2022.3174334
Feng, X. D., Li, S. C., Yuan, C., Zeng, P., & Sun, Y. (2018). Prediction of slope stability
using naive bayes classifier. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 22, 941–950. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12205-018-1337-3
Ferentinou, M., & Fakir, M. (2018). Integrating Rock Engineering Systems device and
Artificial Neural Networks to predict stability conditions in an open pit. Engineering
Geology, 246, 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.10.010
Ferentinou, M., & Sakellariou, M. G. (2007). Computational intelligence tools for the
prediction of slope performance. Computers and Geotechnics, 34, 362–384. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.06.004
Foong, L. K., & Moayedi, H. (2022). Slope stability evaluation using neural network
optimized by equilibrium optimization and vortex search algorithm. Engineering with
Computers, 38, 1269–1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01282-1
Gandomi, A. H., Kashani, A. R., & Mousavi, M. (2015a). Boundary constraint handling
affection on slope stability analysis. In N. D. Lagaros, & M. Papadrakakis (Eds.),
Engineering and Applied Sciences Optimization, Computational Methods in Applied
Sciences 38 (pp. 341–358). Springer.
Gandomi, A. H., Kashani, A. R., Mousavi, M., & Jalalvandi, M. (2017). Slope stability
analysis using evolutionary optimization techniques. International Journal for
Numerical & Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 41, 251–264. https://doi.org/
10.1002/nag.2554
Gao, W. (2005). Method for searching critical slip surface of soil slope base on ant colony
algorithm. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 36(9), 1100–1104. in Chinese.
Gao, W. (2014). Forecasting of landslide disasters based on bionics algorithm (Part 1:
Critical slip surface searching). Computers and Geotechnics, 61, 370–377. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.06.007
Gao, W. (2015a). Stability analysis of rock slope based on abstraction ant colony
clustering algorithm. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(12), 7969–7982. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12665-014-3956-4
Gao, W. (2015b). Slope stability analysis based on immunised evolutionary
programming. Environmental Earth Sciences, 74(4), 3357–3369. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12665-015-4372-0
Gao, W. (2016a). Premium-penalty ant colony optimization and its application in slope
stability analysis. Applied Soft Computing, 43, 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asoc.2016.03.001
Gao, W. (2016b). Determination of non-circular critical slip surface in slope stability
analysis by meeting ant colony optimization. Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering, 30(2), 06015001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-
5487.0000475
Gao, W. (2017). Investigating the critical slip surface of soil slope based on an improved
black hole algorithm. Soils and Foundations, 57, 988–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sandf.2017.08.026
Gao, W., Raftari, M., Rashid, A., Mu’azu, M., & Jusoh, W. (2020). A predictive model
based on an optimized ANN combined with ICA for predicting the stability of slopes.
Engineering with Computers, 36, 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-
00702-7
Gao, W., Wang, X., Dai, S., & Chen, D. (2016). Study on stability of high embankment
slope based on black hole algorithm. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(20), 1381.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6208-y
Gao, W., & Yin, Z. X. (2011). Modern intelligent bionics algorithm and its applications.
Science Press. in Chinese.
Geem, Z. W., Kim, J. H., & Loganathan, G. V. (2001). A new heuristic optimization
algorithm: Harmony search. Simulation, 76, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/
003754970107600201
Gelisli, K., Kaya, T., & Babacan, A. E. (2015). Assessing the factor of safety using an
artificial neural network: Case studies on landslides in Giresun, Turkey.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 73, 8639–8646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-
4027-1
Glover, F. (1989). Tabu search-part I. ORSA Journal on Computing, 1(3), 190–206.
Goh, A. T. C. (1999). Genetic algorithm search for critical slip surface in multiple-wedge
stability analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36, 382–391. https://doi.org/
10.1139/cgj-36-2-382
Goh, A. T. C. (2000). Search for critical slip circle using genetic algorithms. Civil
Engineering and Environmental Systems, 17(3), 181–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02630250008970282
Gong, B. (2021). Study of PLSR-BP model for stability assessment of loess slope based on
particle swarm optimization. Scientific Reports, 11, 17888. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-021-97484-0
Gordan, B., Armaghani, D. J., Hajihassani, M., & Monjezi, M. (2016). Prediction of
seismic slope stability through combination of particle swarm optimization and
neural network. Engineering with Computers, 32, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00366-015-0400-7
Greco, V. R. (1996). Efficient Monte Carlo technique for location critical slip surface.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 122, 517–525. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9410(1996)122:7(517)
Han, T. C. (2003, November). Stability calculation of slope by a tabu search method.
Presentation at Fourth joint international symposium on information technology in
civil engineering, Nashville.
Hatamlou, A. (2013). Black hole: A new heuristic optimization approach for data
clustering. Information Sciences, 222, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ins.2012.08.023
He, P., Li, S. C., Xiao, J., Zhang, Q. Q., Xu, F., & Zhang, J. (2018). Shallow sliding failure
prediction model of expansive soil slope based on Gaussian process theory and its
35
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
engineering application. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 22(5), 1709–1719.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1934-6
Himanshu, N., & Burman, A. (2019). Determination of critical failure surface of slopes
using particle swarm optimization technique considering seepage and seismic
loading. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 37, 1261–1281. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10706-018-0683-8
Himanshu, N., Burman, A., & Kumar, V. (2020). Assessment of optimum location of non-
circular failure surface in soil slope using unified particle swarm optimization.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 38, 2061–2083. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10706-019-01148-w
Himanshu, N., Kumar, V., Burman, A., Maity, D., & Gordan, B. (2021). Grey wolf
optimization approach for searching critical failure surface in soil slopes. Engineering
with Computers, 37, 2059–2072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00927-6
Hoang, N. D., & Pham, A. D. (2016). Hybrid artificial intelligence approach based on
metaheuristic and machine learning for slope stability assessment: A multinational
data analysis. Expert Systems With Applications, 46, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eswa.2015.10.020
Hsiao, C. H., Chen, A. Y., Ge, L., & Yeh, F. H. (2022). Performance of artificial neural
network and convolutional neural network on slope failure prediction using data
from the random finite element method. Acta Geotechnica, 17, 5801–5811. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-01520-w
Hu, C., Jimenez, R., Li, S. C., & Li, L. P. (2015). Determination of critical slip surfaces
using mutative scale chaos optimization. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 29
(5), 04014067. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000373
Huang, D., & Qiao, J. P. (2010, August). Hybrid of ant colony algorithm and simulated
annealing algorithm and its application to the slope stability analysis. Presentation at
Sixth international conference on natural computation, Yantai.
Huang, F., Xiong, H., Chen, S., Lv, Z., Huang, J., Chang, Z., & Catani, F. (2023). Slope
stability prediction based on a long short-term memory neural network:
Comparisons with convolutional neural networks, support vector machines and
random forest models. International Journal of Coal Science & Technology, 10, 18.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40789-023-00579-4
Jellali, B., & Frikha, W. (2017). Constrained particle swarm optimization algorithm
applied to slope stability. International Journal of Geomechanics, 17(12), 06017022.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001019
Jin, L. X., & Feng, Q. X. (2018). Improved radial movement optimization to determine
the critical failure surface for slope stability analysis. Environmental Earth Sciences,
77, 564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7742-6
Kahatadeniya, K. S., Nanakorn, P., & Neaupane, K. M. (2009). Determination of the
critical failure surface for slope stability analysis using ant colony optimization.
Engineering Geology, 108, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.06.010
Kalatehjari, R., Ali, N., Kholghifard, M., & Hajihassani, M. (2014). The effects of method
of generating circular slip surfaces on determining the critical slip surface by particle
swarm optimization. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 7(4), 1529–1539. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12517-013-0922-5
Kalatehjari, R., Arefnia, A., Rashid, A., Ali, N., & Hajihassani, M. (2015). Determination
of three dimensional shape of failure in soil slopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 52
(9), 1283–1301. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0326
Kang, F., Li, J., & Ma, Z. (2013). An artificial bee colony algorithm for locating the
critical slip surface in slope stability analysis. Engineering Optimization, 45(2),
207–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2012.665451
Kang, F., Xu, B., Li, J. J., & Zhao, S. Z. (2017). Slope stability evaluation using Gaussian
processes with various covariance functions. Applied Soft Computing, 60, 387–396.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.07.011
Karaboga, D., & Basturk, B. (2007). A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical
function optimization: Artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. Journal of Global
Optimization, 39(3), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-007-9149-x
Kardani, N., Zhou, A., Nazem, M., & Shen, S. L. (2021). Improved prediction of slope
stability using a hybrid stacking ensemble method based on finite element analysis
and field data. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 13(1),
188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.05.011
Karir, D., Ray, A., Bharati, A. K., Chaturvedi, U., Rai, R., & Khandelwal, M. (2022).
Stability prediction of a natural and man-made slope using various machine learning
algorithms. Transportation Geotechnics, 34, Article 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.trgeo.2022.100745
Kashani, A. R., Chiong, R., Mirjalili, S., & Gandomi, A. H. (2021). Particle swarm
optimization variants for solving geotechnical problems: Review and comparative
analysis. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 28, 1871–1927. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11831-020-09442-0
Kashani, A. R., Gandomi, A. H., & Mousavi, M. (2016). Imperialistic competitive
algorithm: A metaheuristic algorithm for locating the critical slip surface in 2-
dimensional soil slopes. Geoscience Frontiers, 7(1), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gsf.2014.11.005
Khajehzadeh, M. (2022). Earth slope stability evaluation subjected to earthquake loading
using chaotic sperm swarm optimization. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 15, 1338.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10633-1
Khajehzadeh, M., Mohd, R. T., Suraparb, K., Hamidreza, M., & Mohammadreza, J.
(2022). An effective artificial intelligence approach for slope stability evaluation.
IEEE Access, 10, 5660–5671. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3141432
Khajehzadeh, M., Taha, M. R., El-shafie, A., & Eslami, M. (2011). Search for critical
failure surface in slope stability analysis by gravitational search algorithm.
International Journal of Physical Sciences, 6(21), 5012–5021. https://doi.org/
10.5897/IJPS11.694
Khajehzadeh, M., Taha, M. R., El-shafie, A., & Eslami, M. (2012a). A modified
gravitational search algorithm for slope stability analysis. Engineering Applications of
W. Gao and S. Ge
Artificial Intelligence, 25(8), 1589–1597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engappai.2012.01.011
Khajehzadeh, M., Taha, M. R., El-shafie, A., & Eslami, M. (2012b). Locating the general
failure surface of earth slope using particle swarm optimization. Civil Engineering and
Environmental Systems, 29(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10286608.2012.663356
Khajehzadeh, M., Taha, M. R., & Eslami, M. (2014). Opposition-based firefly algorithm
for earth slope stability evaluation. China Ocean Engineering, 28, 713–724. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13344-014-0055-y
KhaloKakaie, R., Zare, N., & M.. (2012). The assessment of rock slope instability along
the khosh-yeylagh main road (Iran) using a systems approach. Environmental Earth
Sciences, 67, 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1510-1
Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C. D., & Vecchi, M. P. (1983). Optimization by simulated
annealing. Science, 220, 671–680.
Koopialipoor, M., Armaghani, D. J., Hedayat, A., Marto, A., & Gordan, B. (2019).
Applying various hybrid intelligent systems to evaluate and predict slope stability
under static and dynamic conditions. Soft Computing, 23, 5913–5929. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00500-018-3253-3
Kostić, S., Vasović, N., Todorović, K., & Samčović, A. (2016, November). Application of
artificial neural networks for slope stability analysis in geotechnical practice. Presentation
at 13th Symposium on Neural Networks and Applications, Belgrade.
Kumar, M., Samui, P., & Naithani, A. K. (2016). Determination of stability of
epimetamorphic rock slope using Minimax Probability Machine. Geomatics, Natural
Hazards and Risk, 7(1), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2014.883440
Lee, T. L., Lin, H. M., & Lu, Y. P. (2009). Assessment of highway slope failure using neural
networks. Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A, 10(1), 101–108. https://doi.org/
10.1631/jzus.A0820265
Lefebvre, G. (1971). STABR User’s Manual. University of California at Berkeley,
Department of Civil Engineering.
Leonardi, G., Palamara, R., & Suraci, F. (2020). A fuzzy methodology to evaluate the
landslide risk in road lifelines. Transportation Research Procedia, 45, 732–739.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.02.104
Li, A. J., Khoo, S., Lyamin, A. V., & Wang, Y. (2016). Rock slope stability analyses using
extreme learning neural network and terminal steepest descent algorithm.
Automation in Construction, 65, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2016.02.004
Li, B., Li, D., Zhang, Z., Yang, S., & Wang, F. (2015). Slope stability analysis based on
quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization and least squares support vector
machine. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 39(17), 5253–5264. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apm.2015.03.032
Li, L., Cheng, Y. M., & Chu, X. S. (2013). A new approach to the determination of the
critical slip surfaces of slopes. China Ocean Engineering, 27(1), 51–64. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13344-013-0005-0
Li, L., & Chu, X. S. (2011). An improved particle swarm optimization algorithm with
harmony strategy for the location of critical slip surface of slopes. China Ocean
Engineering, 25(2), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13344-011-0030-9
Li, M. L., Li, K. G., Qin, Q. C., & Yue, R. (2023). Slope stability prediction based on
IPOARF algorithm: A case study of Lala Copper Mine, Sichuan, China. Expert Systems
With Applications, 229, Article 120595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2023.120595
Li, S. H., Luo, X. H., & Wu, L. Z. (2021). An improved whale optimization algorithm for
locating critical slip surface of slopes. Advances in Engineering Software, 157–158,
Article 103009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2021.103009
Li, S. H., & Wu, L. Z. (2021). An improved salp swarm algorithm for locating critical slip
surface of slopes. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 14, 359. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12517-021-06687-2
Li, S. H., Wu, L. Z., & Luo, X. H. (2020). A novel method for locating the critical slip
surface of a soil slope. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 94, Article
103733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103733
Li, S. H., Zhong, C. Y., & Luo, X. H. (2022). Locating critical slip surfaces of soil slopes
with heuristic algorithms: A comparative study. Expert Systems With Applications,
191, Article 116214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116214
Li, S. J., & Liu, Y. X. (2004). Intelligent forecast procedures for slope stability with
evolutionary artificial neural network. In F. Yin, J. Wang, & C. Guo (Eds.), Advances
in Neural Networks (pp. 792–798). Springer.
Li, S. J., & Liu, Y. X. (2005). Data mining techniques for slope stability estimation with
probabilistic neural networks. In D. Li, & B. Wang (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence
Applications and Innovations (pp. 491–498). Springer.
Li, X. L., Shao, Z. J., & Qian, J. X. (2002). An optimization method based on autonomous:
Fish swarm algorithm. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 5(1), 32–38. in Chinese.
Li, Y., Liu, C., Wang, L., & Xu, S. (2022). Stability analysis of inhomogeneous slopes in
unsaturated soils optimized by a genetic algorithm. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 22(9), 04022151. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0002461
Li, Y. C., Chen, Y. M., Zhan, T. L. T., Ling, D. S., & Cleall, P. J. (2010). An efficient
approach for locating the critical slip surface in slope stability analyses using a real-
coded genetic algorithm. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 47, 806–820. https://doi.
org/10.1139/T09-124
Liang, H., & Zhang, H. (2010, July). Identification of slope stability based on the contrast of
BP neural network and SVM. Presentation at 3rd IEEE international conference on
computer science and information technology, Chengdu.
Liang, R., & Pensomboon, G. (2010). Multicriteria decision-making approach for
highway slope hazard management. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 16, 50–57.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2010)16:1(50)
Lin, S., Zheng, H., Han, B., Li, Y. Y., Han, C., & Li, W. (2022). Comparative performance
of eight ensemble learning approaches for the development of models of slope
36
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
stability prediction. Acta Geotechnica, 17, 1477–1502. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11440-021-01440-1
Lin, Y., Zhou, K. P., & Li, J. L. (2018). Prediction of slope stability using four supervised
learning methods. IEEE Access, 6, 31169–31179. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2018.2843787
Liu, Y. C., & Chen, C. S. (2007). A new approach for application of rock mass
classification on rock slope stability assessment. Engineering Geology, 89, 129–143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.09.017
Liu, Z. B., Shao, J. F., Xu, W. Y., Chen, H. J., & Zhang, Y. (2014). An extreme learning
machine approach for slope stability evaluation and prediction. Natural Hazards, 73,
787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1106-7
Lu, P., & Rosenbaum, M. (2003). Artificial neural networks and grey systems for the
prediction of slope stability. Natural Hazards, 30, 383–398. https://doi.org/
10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000007168.00673.27
Lu, S. B., Meng, W. J., & Li, L. (2010). An improved harmony search algorithm with
dynamic adaptation for location of critical slip surface. In Y. Tan, Y. Shi, & K. C. Tan
(Eds.), Advances in Swarm Intelligence (pp. 576–581). Springer.
Luo, Z. Y., Bui, X. N., Nguyen, H., & Moayedi, H. (2021). A novel artificial intelligence
technique for analyzing slope stability using PSO-CA model. Engineering with
Computers, 37, 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00839-5
Ma, L., Zhao, J. Q., Zhang, J. G., & Xiao, S. S. (2021). Slope Stability Analysis Based on
Leader Dolphins Herd Algorithm and Simplified Bishop Method. IEEE Acccess, 9,
28251–28259. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3058117
Mahmoodzadeh, A., Mohammadi, M., Hama Ali, H. F., Ibrahim, H. H.,
Abdulhamid, S. N., & Nejati, H. R. (2022). Prediction of safety factors for slope
stability: Comparison of machine learning techniques. Natural Hazards, 111,
1771–1799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-05115-8
Malkawi, A. I. H., Hassan, W. F., & Sarma, S. K. (2001). Global search method for
locating general slip surface using Monte Carlo techniques. Journal of Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127, 688–698. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2001)127:8(688)
Manouchehrian, A., Gholamnejad, J., & Sharifzadeh, M. (2014). Development of a model
for analysis of slope stability for circular mode failure using genetic algorithm.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 71(3), 1267–1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-
013-2531-8
Marrapu, B. M., & Jakka, R. S. (2020). A comparative study on the performance of ANN,
MLR and MNR in the assessment of slope stability for kalla - Coonoor Hill Road
Stretch of Nilgiris. In S. Satapathy, K. Raju, K. Molugaram, A. Krishnaiah, &
G. Tsihrintzis (Eds.), Learning and Analytics in Intelligent Systems (pp. 105–114).
Springer.
McCombie, P., & Wilkinson, P. (2002). The use of the simple genetic algorithm in finding
the critical factor of safety in slope stability analysis. Computers & Geotechnics, 29(8),
699–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-352X(02)00027-7
Mirjalili, S. (2015). The ant lion optimizer. Advances in Engineering Software, 83, 80–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.01.010
Mirjalili, S., Gandomi, A. H., Mirjalili, S. Z., Saremi, S., Faris, H., & Mirjalili, S. M. (2017).
Salp Swarm Algorithm: A bio-inspired optimizer for engineering design problems.
Advances in Engineering Software, 114, 163–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
advengsoft.2017.07.002
Mirjalili, S., Mirjalili, S. M., & Hatamlou, A. (2016). Multi-verse optimizer: A nature
inspired algorithm for global optimization. Neural Computing and Applications, 27(2),
495–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-1870-7
Mirjalili, S., Mirjalili, S. M., & Lewis, A. (2014). Grey wolf optimizer. Advances in
Engineering Software, 69, 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007
Mishra, M., Basson, M. S., Ramana, G. V., & Vassallo, R. (2020a). Ant colony
optimization for slope stability analysis applied to an embankment failure in eastern
India. International Journal of Geo-Engineering, 11, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40703-020-00110-7
Mishra, M., Ramana, G. V., & Maity, D. (2020b). Multiverse optimisation algorithm for
capturing the critical slip surface in slope stability analysis. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 38, 459–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-01037-2
Mishra, M., Ramana, G. V., & Maity, D. (2020c). Teaching-learning-based optimisation
algorithm and its application in capturing critical slip surface in slope stability
analysis. Soft Computing, 24, 2969–2982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-
04075-3
Mishra, M., Ramana, G. V., & Miranda, T. (2019). Slope stability analysis using recent
metaheuristic techniques: A comprehensive survey. SN Applied Sciences, 1, 1674.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1707-6
Moayedi, H. (2021). Two novel predictive networks for slope stability analysis using a
combination of genetic programming and artificial neural network techniques. In
X. N. Bui, C. Lee, & C. Drebenstedt (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering (vol 109,
pp. 91–108). Springer.
Moayedi, H., Osouli, A., Nguyen, H., & Rashid, A. (2021). A novel Harris hawks’
optimization and k-fold cross-validation predicting slope stability. Engineering with
Computers, 37, 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00828-8
Mu’azu, M. A. (2023). Enhancing slope stability prediction using fuzzy and neural
frameworks optimized by metaheuristic science. Mathematical Geosciences, 55,
263–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-022-10029-7
Ospina-Dávila, Y. M., & Orozco-Alzate, M. (2020). Parsimonious design of pattern
recognition systems for slope stability analysis. Earth Science Informatics, 13,
523–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-019-00429-5
Pina, R. J., & Jimenez, R. (2015). A genetic algorithm for slope stability analyses with
concave slip surfaces using custom operators. Engineering Optimization, 47(4),
453–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2014.895339
Poso Jr., F. D., & de Jesus, K. L. M. (2022, December). Neural Network-Particle Swarm
Optimization Model for Predicting Slope Stability of Homogeneous Earth Dams.
W. Gao and S. Ge
Presentation at IEEE 14th International Conference on Humanoid, Nanotechnology,
Information Technology, Communication and Control, Environment, and
Management, Boracay Island.
Qi, C. C., & Tang, X. L. (2018a). Slope stability prediction using integrated metaheuristic
and machine learning approaches: A comparative study. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 118, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.02.028
Qi, C. C., & Tang, X. L. (2018b). A hybrid ensemble method for improved prediction of
slope stability. International Journal for Numerical & Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 42, 1823–1839. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2834
Qian, Z. G., Li, A. J., Chen, W. C., Lyamin, A. V., & Jiang, J. C. (2019). An artificial neural
network approach to inhomogeneous soil slope stability predictions based on limit
analysis methods. Soils and Foundations, 59, 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sandf.2018.10.008
Qin, J., Du, S., Ye, J., & Yong, R. (2022). SVNN-ANFIS approach for stability evaluation
of open-pit mine slopes. Expert Systems With Applications, 198, Article 116816.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116816
Qin, J. B., Ye, J., Sun, X. M., Yong, R., & Du, S. G. (2023). A single-valued neutrosophic
Gaussian process regression approach for stability prediction of open-pit mine
slopes. Applied Intelligence, 53, 13206–13223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-
04089-9
Rahmani, R., & Yusof, R. (2014). A new simple, fast and efficient algorithm for global
optimization over continuous search-space problems: Radial Movement
Optimization. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 248, 287–300. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.amc.2014.09.102
Rahul, K., Rai, R., & Shrivastva, B. K. (2015). Evaluation of dump slope stability of a coal
mine using artificial neural network. Geomechanics and Geophysics for Geo-Energy and
Geo-Resources, 1, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40948-015-0009-8
Raihan, T. M., Mohammad, K., & Mahdiyeh, E. (2013). A new hybrid algorithm for global
optimization and slope stability evaluation. Journal of Central South University, 20
(11), 3265–3273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-013-1850-y
Rao, R. V., Savsani, V. J., & Vakharia, D. P. (2011). Teaching-learning-based
optimization: A novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization
problems. Computer Aided Design, 43, 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cad.2010.12.015
Rashedi, E., Nezamabadi-pour, H., & Saryazdi, S. (2009). GSA: A gravitational search
algorithm. Information Sciences, 179(13), 2232–2248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ins.2009.03.004
Ray, A., Kumar, V., Kumar, A., Rai, R., Khandelwal, M., & Singh, T. N. (2020). Stability
prediction of Himalayan residual soil slope using artificial neural network. Natural
Hazards, 103, 3523–3540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04141-2
Rukhaiyar, S., Alam, M. N., & Samadhiya, N. K. (2018). A PSO-ANN hybrid model for
predicting factor of safety of slope. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
12(6), 556–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1305652
Sabhahit, N., & Rao, A. (2011). Genetic algorithms in stability analysis of non-
homogeneous slopes. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 5(1), 33–44.
https://doi.org/10.3328/IJGE.2011.05.01.33-44
Safa, M., Sari, P. A., Shariati, M., Suhatril, M., Trung, N. T., Wakil, K., & Khorami, M.
(2020). Development of neuro-fuzzy and neuro-bee predictive models for prediction
of the safety factor of eco-protection slopes. Physica A, 550, Article 124046. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.124046
Saha, A. (2013, December). Big-bang big-crunch optimization in locating the critical surface
in slope-stability. Presentation at Indian geotechnical conference, Roorkee.
Sahoo, A. K., Pramanik, J., Jayanthu, S., & Samal, A. K. (2022, December). Slope Stability
Predictions using Machine Learning Techniques. Presentation at 4th International
Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication Control and Networking,
Greater Noida.
Sakellariou, M., & Ferentinou, M. (2005). A study of slope stability prediction using
neural networks. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 23(4), 419–445. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10706-004-8680-5
Samui, P. (2008). Slope stability analysis: A support vector machine approach.
Environmental Geology, 56, 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-1161-4
Samui, P. (2013). Support vector classifier analysis of slope. Geomatics, Natural Hazards
and Risk, 4(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2012.684725
Samui, P., & Kothari, D. (2011). Utilization of a least square support vector machine
(LSSVM) for slope stability analysis. Scientia Iranica Transactions A: Civil Engineering,
18(1), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2011.03.007
Sari, P., Suhatril, M., Osman, N., Mu’azu, M., Dehghani, H., Sedghi, Y., Safa, M.,
Hasanipanah, M., Wakil, K., Khorami, M., & Djuric, S. (2019). An intelligent based-
model role to simulate the factor of safe slope by support vector regression.
Engineering with Computers, 35, 1521–1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-018-
0677-4
Sengupta, A., & Upadhyay, A. (2009). Locating the critical failure surface in a slope
stability analysis by genetic algorithm. Applied Soft Computing, 9(1), 387–392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2008.04.015
Shangguan, Z. C., Li, S. J., & Luan, M. T. (2009). Intelligent forecasting method for slope
stability estimation by using probabilistic neural networks. Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Bundle C, 13, 1–10.
Shang, L., Nguyen, H., Bui, X. N., Vu, T. H., Costache, R., & Hanh, L. T. M. (2022).
Toward state-of-the-art techniques in predicting and controlling slope stability in
open-pit mines based on limit equilibrium analysis, radial basis function neural
network, and brainstorm optimization. Acta Geotechnica, 17, 1295–1314. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01373-9
Sharma, R. K., Kaur, A., & Kumar, A. (2019). Slope stability analysis by bishop analysis
using MATLAB program based on particle swarm optimization technique. In
H. Singh, P. Garg, & I. Kaur (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering (vol 21, pp.
285–293). Springer.
37
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
Shinoda, M. (2015). Seismic stability and displacement analyses of earth slopes using
non-circular slip surface. Soils and Foundations, 55(2), 227–241. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.sandf.2015.02.001
Shinoda, M., & Miyata, Y. (2019). PSO-based stability analysis of unreinforced and
reinforced soil slopes using non-circular slip surface. Acta Geotechnica, 14, 907–919.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-018-0678-x
Simon, D. (2008). Biogeography-based optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary
Computation, 12(6), 702–713. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2008.919004
Singh, J., & Banka, H. (2021). A Meta-heuristic based approach for slope stability
analysis to design an optimal soil slope. In S. Das, N. Dey, & A. E. Hassanien (Eds.),
Machine Learning Algorithms for Industrial Applications (pp. 195–207). Springer.
Singh, J., Banka, H., & Verma, A. K. (2018a, March). Analysis of slope stability and
detection of critical failure surface using gravitational search algorithm. Presentation at
4th International Conference on Recent Advances in Information Technology,
Dhanbad.
Singh, J., Banka, H., & Verma, A. K. (2019a). Locating critical failure surface using meta-
heuristic approaches: A comparative assessment. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 12,
307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-019-4435-8
Singh, J., Banka, H., & Verma, A. K. (2019b). A BBO-based algorithm for slope stability
analysis by locating critical failure surface. Neural Computing and Applications, 31,
6401–6418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3418-0
Singh, J., Kumar, R., & Banka, H. (2021). Application of flower pollination algorithm to
locate critical failure surface for slope stability analysis. In S. Das, N. Dey, &
A. E. Hassanien (Eds.), Machine Learning Algorithms for Industrial Applications (pp.
301–315). Springer.
Singh, J., Verma, A. K., & Banka, H. (2018b, March). Application of biogeography based
optimization to locate critical slip surface in slope stability evaluation. Presentation at 4th
International Conference on Recent Advances in Information Technology, Dhanbad.
Snyman, J. A. (1982). A new and dynamic method for unconstrained minimization.
Applied Mathematical Modelling, 6, 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0307-904X
(82)80007-3
Soranzo, E., Guardiani, C., Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Wu, W. (2023). Convolutional neural
networks prediction of the factor of safety of random layered slopes by the strength
reduction method. Acta Geotechnica, 18, 3391–3402. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11440-022-01783-3
Suman, S., Khan, S. Z., Das, S. K., & Chand, S. K. (2016). Slope stability analysis using
artificial intelligence techniques. Natural Hazards, 84, 727–748. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11069-016-2454-2
Sun, J. L., Wu, S. C., Zhang, H. J., Zhang, X. Q., & Wang, T. (2022a). Based on multi-
algorithm hybrid method to predict the slope safety factor–stacking ensemble
learning with Bayesian optimization. Journal of Computational Science, 59, Article
101587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2022.101587
Sun, J. P., Li, J. C., & Liu, Q. Q. (2008). Search for critical slip surface in slope stability
analysis by spline-based GA method. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 134(2), 252–256. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)
134:2(252)
Sun, J. P., Yu, T. T., & Dong, P. T. (2022b). A new perspective on determination of the
critical slip surface of three-dimensional slopes. Computers and Geotechnics, 151,
Article 104946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.104946
Tan, Y., & Zhu, Y. C. (2010). Fireworks algorithm for optimization. In Y. Tan, Y. Shi, &
K. C. Tan (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (vol. 6145, pp. 355–364). Springer.
Tian, D., Wang, S., & Xu, L. (2009, December). The application of particle swarm
optimization on the search of critical slip surface. Presentation at 2009 International
Conference on Information Engineering and Computer Science, Wuhan.
Verma, A., Singh, T., Chauhan, N. K., & Sarkar, K. (2016). A hybrid FEM–ANN approach
for slope instability prediction. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A,
97, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-016-0168-9
Wang, G., Guo, L., Gandomi, A. H., Cao, L., Alavi, A. H., Duan, H., & Li, J. (2013). Levy-
Flight krill herd algorithm. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2013, Article
682073. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/682073
Wang, G. J., Zhao, B., Wu, B. S., Zhang, C., & Liu, W. L. (2023). Intelligent prediction of
slope stability based on visual exploratory data analysis of 77 in situ cases.
International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 33, 47–59. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijmst.2022.07.002
Wang, H., Moayedi, H., & Foong, L. K. (2021). Genetic algorithm hybridized with
multilayer perceptron to have an economical slope stability design. Engineering with
Computers, 37, 3067–3078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-00957-5
Wang, H. B., Xu, W. Y., & Xu, R. C. (2005). Slope stability evaluation using Back
Propagation Neural Networks. Engineering Geology, 80, 302–315. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.06.005
Xia, Y. Y., & Xiao, F. (2000, September). Evaluation of slope stability based on one self-
adaptive clustering method. Presentation at 6th Chinese Conference of Rock Mechanics
and Rock Engineering, Wuhan. (in Chinese).
Xiao, Z. Y., Tian, B., & Lu, X. C. (2019). Locating the critical slip surface in a slope
stability analysis by enhanced fireworks algorithm. Cluster Computing, 22, 719–729.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-017-1196-6
Xie, Q., Jie, Y. X., Cui, Y., & Yin, C. Y. (2023). Generating slip surfaces using the logistic
function integral. International Journal of Geomechanics, 23(5), 04023034. https://
doi.org/10.1061/IJGNAI.GMENG-7972
Xu, Z. X., & Zhou, X. P. (2022). Determination of the critical slip surface of slope based on
the improved quantum genetic algorithm and random forest. KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, 26(5), 2126–2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-022-1289-5
Xue, X. (2017). Prediction of slope stability based on hybrid PSO and LSSVM. Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, 31(1), 04016041. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CP.1943-5487.0000607
W. Gao and S. Ge
Xue, X., Yang, X., & Chen, X. (2014). Application of a support vector machine for
prediction of slope stability. Science China Technological Sciences, 57, 2379–2386.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-014-5699-6
Yamagami, T., & Jiang, J. C. (1997). A search for the critical slip surface in three-
dimensional slope stability analysis. Soils & Foundations, 37, 1–16. https://doi.org/
10.3208/sandf.37.3_1
Yamagami, T., & Ueta, Y. (1988, April). Search for noncircular slip surface by the
Morgenstern-Price method. Presentation at 6th International Conference on Numerical
Methods in Geomechanics, Innsbruck.
Yang, C. X., Tham, L. G., Feng, X. T., Wang, Y. J., & Lee, P. K. K. (2004). Two-stepped
evolutionary algorithm and its application to stability analysis of slopes. Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, 18(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0887-3801(2004)18:2(145)
Yang, X. S. (2008). Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms. Luniver Press.
Yang, X. S. (2012). Flower pollination algorithm for global optimization. In J. Durand-
Lose, & N. Jonoska (Eds.), Unconventional Computation and Natural Computation (pp.
240–249). Springer.
Yang, Y. T., Wu, W., Zhang, J. H., Zheng, H., & Xu, D. D. (2021). Determination of critical
slip surface and safety factor of slope using the vector sum numerical manifold
method and MAX-MIN ant colony optimization algorithm. Engineering Analysis with
Boundary Elements, 127, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enganabound.2021.03.012
Yuan, C., & Moayedi, H. (2020). The performance of six neural-evolutionary
classification techniques combined with multi-layer perception in two-layered
cohesive slope stability analysis and failure recognition. Engineering with Computers,
36, 1705–1714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00791-4
Zakaria, J. (2016). Development of slope mass rating system using K-means and fuzzy c-
means clustering algorithms. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology,
26(6), 959–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2016.09.004
Zare, N., Jimenez, R., KhaloKakaie, R., & Jalali, S. M. E. (2013). A new open-pit mine
slope instability index defined using the improved rock engineering systems
approach. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 61, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.01.012
Zeng, F., Amar, M. N., Mohammed, A. S., Motahari, M. R., & Hasanipanah, M. (2022).
Improving the performance of LSSVM model in predicting the safety factor for
circular failure slope through optimization algorithms. Engineering with Computers,
38(S3), S1755–S1766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01374-y
Zhang, K., & Cao, P. (2011). Modified electromagnetism-like algorithm and its
application to slope stability analysis. Journal of Central South University of
Technology, 18, 2100–2107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771− 011− 0949− 2
Zhang, T., Wang, H. W., & Wang, Z. C. (1999). Mutative scale chaos optimization
algorithm and its application. Control & Decision, 14(3), 285–288. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11768-008-6067-5
38
Expert Systems With Applications 239 (2024) 122400
Zhang, W. G., Li, H. R., Han, L., Chen, L. L., & Wang, L. (2022). Slope stability prediction
using ensemble learning techniques: A case study in Yunyang County, Chongqing,
China. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 14, 1089–1099.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.12.011
Zhang, Y., Dai, M. L., & Ju, Z. M. (2016). Preliminary discussion regarding SVM kernel
function selection in the twofold rock slope prediction model. Journal of Computing in
Civil Engineering, 30(3), 04015031. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-
5487.0000499
Zhang, Y. S., Ming, F., & Chang, M. J. (2022, July). A prediction model for slope stability
based on the support vector machine. Presentation at International Conference on
Computer Engineering and Artificial Intelligence, Shijiazhuang.
Zhang, Z. F., Liu, Z. B., Zheng, L. F., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Development of an adaptive
relevance vector machine approach for slope stability inference. Neural Computing &
Applications, 25, 2025–2035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-014-1690-1
Zhao, H. B., Zou, Z. S., & Ru, Z. L. (2008). Chaotic particle swarm optimization for non-
circular critical slip surface identification in slope stability analysis. In M. Cai, &
J. A. Wang (Eds.), Boundaries of Rock Mechanics, Recent Advances and Challenges for
the 21st Century (pp. 585–588). Taylor & Francis Group.
Zhao, H. B., Yin, S. D., & Ru, Z. L. (2012). Relevance vector machine applied to slope
stability analysis. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 36(5), 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1037
Zhao, J., Ge, K., & Xu, K. (2015). A heuristic algorithm based on leadership strategy:
Leader of dolphin herd algorithm (LDHA). Journal of Advanced Computational
Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, 19(4), Article 491499. https://doi.org/
10.20965/jaciii.2015.p0491
Zhou, J., Li, E. M., Yang, S., Wang, M. Z., Shi, X. Z., Yao, S., & Mitric, H. S. (2019). Slope
stability prediction for circular mode failure using gradient boosting machine
approach based on an updated database of case histories. Safety Science, 118,
505–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.046
Zhou, L. Y., Shan, F. P., Shimizu, K., Imoto, T., Lateh, H., & Peng, K. S. (2017).
A comparative study of slope failure prediction using logistic regression, support
vector machine and least square support vector machine models. AIP Conference
Proceedings, 1870, Article 060012. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995939
Zhou, X. P., Huang, X. C., & Zhao, X. F. (2020). Optimization of the critical slip surface of
three-dimensional slope by using an improved genetic algorithm. International
Journal of Geomechanics, 20(8), 04020120. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0001747
Zhu, J. F., & Chen, C. F. (2014). Search for circular and noncircular critical slip surfaces
in slope stability analysis by hybrid genetic algorithm. Journal of Central South
University of Technology, 21, 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-014-1952-1
Zolfaghari, A. R., Heath, A. C., & McCombie, P. F. (2005). Simple genetic algorithm
search for critical non-circular failure surface in slope stability analysis. Computers &
Geotechnics, 32(3), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2005.02.001