###### Abstract
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Evaluation Method** & & \\
**of Rock Slope** & **Research Content** & **Reference** \\
**Anchorage Systems** & **Stability** & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Reliability Theory} & Applied reliability theory to calculate the probability of rock slope failure and assessed the stability of high slopes reinforced with anchorage. [PERSON] [7] \\ \cline{2-3}  & Proposed a stability evaluation method for anchored slopes based on system reliability analysis (SRA), considering the effects of local failures in anchors and piles on overall system performance. [PERSON] [8] \\ \cline{2-3}  & Demonstrated the accuracy and effectiveness of PEMS, FORM, SORM, and MCS in addressing various reliability issues in rock slope stability assessment. [PERSON] [PERSON] [9] \\ \cline{2-3}  & Developed a frictional contact interface element for potential sliding surfaces and proposed a novel numerical model for prestressed anchors to compute the slope stability factor using a direct finite element method. & \multirow{2}{*}{[PERSON] [12]} \\ \cline{2-3}  & Utilized the strength reduction method (SRM) in conjunction with finite element software to analyze the stability of slopes under reinforcement conditions. & [PERSON] [13] \\ \cline{2-3}  & Employed FLAC 3D numerical simulation software to evaluate the reliability of support design and slope stability based on variations in shear strain and displacement. [PERSON] [PERSON] [14] \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Analytical Method} & Applied an improved limit equilibrium method to assess the stability of anchored slopes. & [PERSON] [15] \\ \cline{2-3}  & Combined limit analysis, the principle of minimum potential energy, and the pseudo-dynamic method to propose a seismic stability evaluation approach that accounts for dynamic variations in anchor axial forces. & [PERSON] [16] \\ \cline{2-3}  & Proposed a comprehensive stability assessment method for anchored slopes based on residual tension variations, validated through pull-out testing. & [PERSON] [18] \\ \cline{2-3}  & Conducted continuous deformation monitoring of slopes after reinforcement and analyzed the data to evaluate the stability of a layered rock slope with anchorage. & [PERSON] [19], [PERSON] [20] \\ \cline{2-3}  & Developed a remote monitoring and forecasting system for landslides using constant resistance to large deformation (CRLD) anchors, aimed at predicting the stability of rock slope anchoring systems. & [PERSON] [21] \\ \cline{2-3}  & Analyzed slope stability by monitoring structural force variations in anchor rods and cables during and after excavation processes. & [PERSON] [14] \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Model Testing} & Conducted laboratory physical model experiments on collapse control and monitoring, investigating failure characteristics and the effectiveness of energy-absorbing reinforcement measures. & \multirow{3}{*}{[PERSON] [23]} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-3}  & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-3}  & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-3}  & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Summary of stability evaluation methods for rock slope anchorage systems. ing, and the distribution of structural planes further influence these properties. Failure to account for site-specific conditions may result in numerical models that deviate from actual field behavior, thereby producing inaccurate simulation results. When conducting stability evaluation based on monitoring data of the rock slope anchoring system, certain displacements and cracking phenomena do not necessarily lead to landslides. Thus, it is challenging to accurately assess and predict landslides through phenomenon-based monitoring (e.g., displacement monitoring) [22]. In terms of stability evaluation based on testing for rock slope anchoring systems, some testing methods are destructive, which can affect the stability of the entire system. These methods are costly, time-consuming, and not suitable for large-scale applications.