## 3 Experiments and Results
### Coupling Modeling
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Factor** & **Grading** & **Landslide** & **Zone Grid** & **Information** \\
**Indicators** & **Collisions** & **Points** & **Points** & **Value** \\ \hline  & \(<\)1400 & 243 & 3130 & 1.58 \\  & 1400–1480 & 242 & 9405 & 0.47 \\ Elevation & 1480–1560 & 331 & 14,210 & 0.37 \\  & 1560–1640 & 52 & 12,249 & \(-\)1.33 \\  & \(>\)1640 & 1 & 15,262 & \(-\)5.50 \\ \hline  & north & 0 & 1234 & 0.49 \\  & northeast & 0 & 9433 & 1.21 \\  & east & 0 & 10,796 & 0.90 \\ Slope & southeast & 158 & 8828 & 0.11 \\ Orientation & south & 166 & 8357 & 0.21 \\  & southwest & 542 & 11,499 & 1.08 \\  & west & 3 & 3268 & \(-\)2.86 \\  & northwest & 0 & 611 & \(-\)2.13 \\ \hline  & \(<\)6 & 611 & 3,878,069 & \(-\)0.06 \\  & 6–12 & 524 & 3,078,508 & 0.01 \\ Plan Curvature & 12\(\sim\)19 & 176 & 1,119,539 & \(-\)0.07 \\  & 19–23 & 88 & 431,454 & 0.19 \\  & \(>\)23 & 127 & 574,302 & 0.27 \\ \hline  & 0–4\({}^{\circ}\) & 33 & 28,020 & \(-\)2.61 \\  & 4–7\({}^{\circ}\) & 233 & 9811 & 0.39 \\ Slope & 7–10\({}^{\circ}\) & 285 & 10,249 & 0.55 \\  & 10–13\({}^{\circ}\) & 241 & 5418 & 1.02 \\  & \(>\)13\({}^{\circ}\) & 77 & 758 & 1.84 \\ \hline  & \(<\)100 m & 366 & 16,654 & 0.32 \\ Road-Impact & 100 m–200 m & 274 & 7212 & 0.87 \\ Distance & 200 m–300 m & 205 & 9788 & 0.27 \\  & 300 m–400 m & 187 & 15,352 & \(-\)0.27 \\  & \(>\)400 m & 144 & 24,846 & \(-\)1.01 \\ \hline  & \(<\)100 & 954 & 38,016 & 0.46 \\ Fault-Influence & 100–200 & 15 & 15,084 & \(-\)2.77 \\ Distance & 200–300 & 161 & 11,561 & \(-\)0.13 \\  & 300–400 & 7 & 7370 & \(-\)2.82 \\  & \(>\)400 & 39 & 1963 & 0.22 \\ \hline  & \(<\)6 & 37 & 28,987 & \(-\)2.53 \\ Relief & 6–10 & 211 & 8921 & 0.39 \\ Amplitude & 10–15 & 277 & 9711 & 0.58 \\  & 15–23 & 143 & 4371 & 0.71 \\  & \(>\)23 & 201 & 2266 & 1.71 \\ \hline  & \(<\)100 & 46 & 3862 & \(-\)0.29 \\ Distance & 100–200 & 0 & 4444 & 1.39 \\ Affected By & 200–300 & 0 & 9737 & 0.41 \\ Water System & 300–400 & 357 & 19,359 & 0.15 \\  & \(>\)400 & 773 & 36,526 & 0.29 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Spearman correlation coefficient matrix of disaster-causing factors. Figure 4: Results of the model-based zoning map. (**a**) Landslide-susceptibility-evaluation result map based on DNN model; (**b**) landslide-susceptibility zoning results of the DNN-I-SVM coupled model; (**c**) landslide-susceptibility zoning results of the DNN-I-LR coupled model. The information content values of these nine factors were subsequently input into the SVM model, with the dataset curated by the DNN method forming the basis of the DNN-I-SVM coupled model. After training, this model produced the landslide-susceptibility zoning map depicted in Figure 3(b). Similarly, the information content values of the nine factors served as inputs for the LR model, with the dataset selected through the DNN approach constituting the DNN-I-LR coupled model. Once trained, this model yielded the susceptibility zoning map for the DNN-I-LR coupled model, as shown in Figure 3(c). The areas of the susceptibility zones determined by the three models were then compared, with the results presented in Table 4.  
Table 4 is crafted to assess the comparative accuracy between individual models and the ensemble of coupled models. We regard each model as an independent \"observer\", allowing us to evaluate the uniformity of their land-zoning classifications. By aligning these findings with practical considerations, we can ascertain the soundness of the landslide-susceptibility zoning.