How to read this inventory¶
Hazard legend (the Serves column): ⛰️ landslides (shallow / deep-seated) · 🔥 post-fire
debris flows · 🏚️ liquefaction & ground failure · 🌊 floods.
Data are grouped by provenance tier, because that determines how they should be trusted, stored, and calibrated:
Raw / observed inputs — imported from an external archive and treated as a fixed input, not a GAIA model output. Calibration holds these fixed. Note that “raw to us” ≠ “a direct observation”: some ingested products (SOLUS, POLARIS, proxy ) are themselves statistically / ML-derived externally (marked 📈 in §1) and carry prediction uncertainty that must be propagated, not silently dropped.
Derived variables — computed from raw inputs, either deterministically (a documented equation or rule) or statistically (a fitted / ML relationship that carries its own uncertainty). Not observed, but reproducible given the input stack, rules, and config.
Modelled variables & outputs — produced by the model components during a run. These carry model assumptions and uncertainty.
Every value the inventory serves is therefore one of three things, and each entry says which: a direct observation, a deterministic derivation (rule/equation recorded), or a statistical / ML estimate (method + uncertainty recorded). Orthogonally, a handful of numeric parameters are 🎛️ calibration levers — free knobs tuned to targets (§6), neither observed nor fixed by a physical rule. Being a calibration number is legitimate; it just has to be visible and never mistaken for data. These are marked 🎛️ wherever they appear below.
Origin classifies the archive by source class — Federal agency, State, Academic, Private sector, Intl, or GAIA-Modeled — the axis that matters for trust and archival policy (not merely public-vs-private). Native support records the true footprint a value represents, while Posting resolution records the grid it is delivered on; keeping the two apart is what stops a downscaled 9 km pixel from being mistaken for a native 10 m one (the footprint-leakage problem). Temporal resolution is how often the value updates. Limitations captures the caveat a downstream modeler needs before using the layer — including access keys, licenses, and withheld locations (summarized in §7).
The primary targets the pipelines exist to produce are
landslide__probability_of_failure ( ⛰️ 🔥) and the probability / extent of
liquefaction with its manifestation severity (LPI / LSN 🏚️).
1. Raw / observed inputs (external products)¶
Fetched from external archives and prepared onto the working grid — the fixed foundation of the models and of calibration.
| Layer / product | Serves | Source · archive (API / website) | Origin | Native support | Posting resolution · CRS | Temporal resolution | Units | Key limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DEM → topographic__elevation, slope, drainage_area, topographic__specific_contributing_area | ⛰️ 🔥 🏚️ 🌊 | USGS 3DEP via OpenTopography (opentopography.org, USGS 3DEP) | Federal (USGS 3DEP) | 1 m lidar where flown, else ~10 m | ~10 m (1/3 arc-sec); CRS varies | Static (re-flown irregularly) | m | Vertical accuracy & vintage vary; voids; .asc stacks do not embed CRS; OpenTopography API needs a free key |
Soil texture & properties → clay/sand/silt__total, pH, dry__bulk_density, CEC, soil depth | ⛰️ 🔥 🏚️ | USDA SOLUS100 (100 m); public GCS solus100pub; STAC solus-stac | Federal (USDA) · ML-derived 📈 | ML estimate; effective support coarser than grid (SSURGO-scale training) | 100 m · EPSG:5070; depths 0,5,15,30,60,100,150 cm | Static (ML estimate) | %, pH, g cm⁻³, cmol(+)/kg, cm | ML-predicted with uncertainty bands (l/h); CONUS-only; vocabulary differs from POLARIS |
| Soil hydraulic / strength priors (alt.) | ⛰️ 🏚️ | POLARIS 30 m (hydrologylandslide-digital-twin | Academic (Duke) · ML-derived 📈 | Downscaled from SSURGO (coarser than grid) | 30 m; same depth scheme; p5/p50/p95 | Static (statistical) | varies | Downscaled SSURGO; different vocabulary, depths, stats & units from SOLUS — conversion table required |
| Shear-wave velocity → , | 🏚️ ⛰️ | parametric CONUS Sanger & Maurer, 2025; USGS National Crustal Model; slope/geology proxy | Federal / Academic (USGS NCM; Sanger 2025) · statistical 📈 | Proxy ~250–1000 m; parametric at site | Parametric / gridded proxy | Static (→ dynamic via seismic) | m s⁻¹ | Proxy has large scatter; rigidity is high-influence for liquefaction |
| Surficial geology / soil type | 🏚️ ⛰️ | state geologic surveys; USGS | Federal / State (USGS; state surveys) | Map scale 1:24k–1:100k | Vector (1:24k–1:100k) | Static | categorical | Map-scale generalization; susceptibility class boundaries uncertain |
Landcover → vegetation__plant_functional_type | ⛰️ 🔥 | USGS/MRLC NLCD (mrlc.gov) | Federal (USGS/MRLC) | 30 m | 30 m | ~2–3 yr epochs | categorical | Class generalization; epoch lag; needs class→PFT lookup |
Burn severity → burn__severity | 🔥 | MTBS dNBR/RdNBR (mtbs.gov) | Federal (USGS/USFS MTBS) | 30 m | 30 m | Per-fire / annual since 1984 | severity index | Only large fires mapped; dNBR depends on image timing; post-fire only |
| Observed precipitation & temperature → daily forcing | ⛰️ 🔥 🌊 🏚️ | PRISM Climate Group (prismprism-stac; staged via gaia-cli | Academic (PRISM / Oregon State) | Gauge-interpolated; effective coarser in complex terrain | 4 km (800 m licensed) | Daily | mm day⁻¹; °C | Coarse for steep terrain; gauge-sparse interpolation error; 800 m AN81 license-restricted (4 km free) |
Forecast precipitation → tp / APCP_surface | ⛰️ 🔥 🌊 🏚️ | NVIDIA Earth2Studio (github | Private (NVIDIA) | Model grid 0.25° global; StormCast 3 km | 0.25° / 3 km | Forecast: init / lead | m or kg m⁻² (accum.) | Precip is the least-skillful field; accumulation conventions differ; needs downscaling; model weight licenses vary |
| Water-table depth → | 🏚️ ⛰️ 🌊 | Pillar 1 Soil Reanalysis; groundwater modeling; modeled WTD (Zhu GLM) | Modeled (GAIA) | Coarse priors | Tens of m target | Dynamic (seasonal, sea-level) | m | Saturation is a binary gate for liquefaction; coarse priors smear hazard |
| Soil-moisture target (calibration) | ⛰️ 🏚️ | NASA SMAP L4 SPL4SMGP via NSIDC (nsidc | Federal (NASA) | L-band radiometer ~36 km, model-assimilated; senses ~top 5 cm | ~9 km · EASE-2 | 3-hourly | m³ m⁻³ | Coarse footprint; model-assimilated; senses only ~top 5 cm; NASA Earthdata login required |
| Snow-water-equivalent target (calibration) | ⛰️ 🌊 | ECMWF ERA5 / ERA5-Land via CDS (cds | Intl (ECMWF Copernicus) | Reanalysis ~31 km (ERA5) / ~9 km (ERA5-Land) | ERA5 ~31 km; ERA5-Land ~9 km | Hourly | m w.e. | Reanalysis SWE biased in complex terrain; CDS account + license required |
| In-situ met stations | ⛰️ 🔥 🌊 🏚️ | Synoptic Data (synopticdata.com) | Private (Synoptic Data) | Point | Point | Sub-hourly | varies | Heterogeneous networks; uneven density; gaps; API token (free academic) |
| Ground motion (event) → PGA, PGV, MMI | 🏚️ ⛰️ | USGS ShakeMap (earthquake | Federal (USGS) | Event grid | Event grid | Per-event | g, cm s⁻¹ | ShakeMap & GMM epistemic uncertainty; the demand input (future seismic trigger for ⛰️) |
| Seismic hazard (probabilistic) → hazard curves | 🏚️ | USGS NSHM Petersen et al., 2024 via gaia-nhsm-deagg | Federal (USGS) | Site / gridded | Site / gridded | Static (model epoch) | rate vs IM | Fixed reference-rock site term (§7); model-epoch dependence |
| Attenuation → | 🏚️ | high-frequency spectral decay Anderson & Hough, 1984; GAIA seismic / DAS | Academic / GAIA network | Per site/station | Per site/station | Static (→ dynamic) | s | Band/method-dependent; seasonal variability Händel et al., 2025; not yet wired |
| Geotechnical case histories (calibration) | 🏚️ | CPT/SPT liquefaction databases Ballegooy et al., 2014 | Academic / curated | Point | Point | Event-based | varies | Geographic bias; the surrogate’s training/validation base |
| Hazard inventories / maps → validation labels | ⛰️ 🏚️ | USGS / WA DNR landslide inventories (usgs.gov, dnr.wa.gov); post-EQ liquefaction reconnaissance (e.g. 2001 Nisqually) | Federal / State (USGS; WA DNR) | Vector | Vector | Event / historical | presence / severity | Completeness & recency bias; used only to score, never as input; some locations withheld |
2. Derived variables (deterministic & statistical transformations)¶
Computed from the raw stack — not observed, but reproducible given the inputs, rules, and config. Each derivation is one of two kinds: deterministic (a documented equation or rule; §2.1–2.2) or statistical / ML (a fitted relationship that carries its own uncertainty; §2.3). Free constants tuned to targets rather than measured or physically fixed are flagged 🎛️ (the calibration levers of §6). All rows in §2.1–2.2 are deterministic unless a 🎛️ marks a calibration constant embedded in the rule.
2.1 Hydrology & terrain ⛰️ 🔥 🌊¶
| Derived variable | Computed from | Units / dims | Equation or rule | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
drainage_area | DEM + boundaries + Landlab FlowAccumulator | m² | flow routing | upslope area & routing diagnostic |
topographic__slope | DEM | gradient | steepest slope → required field | required by LandslideProbability; gradient vs degrees must be explicit |
topographic__specific_contributing_area | drainage_area, grid.dx | m | hydrologic term in relative wetness | |
soil__transmissivity | , soil thickness | m² day⁻¹ | 🎛️, floor 0.01 (plus 🎛️ksat_factor on ) | 🎛️ 2.5 anisotropy factor & ksat_factor are calibration levers |
vegetation__live_leaf_area_index, cover_fraction | PFT lookup; LAI | – | 🎛️grass 1.5 / shrub 2.0 / tree 4.0; cover = LAI/4 | controls PET & vegetation response; 🎛️ PFT→LAI lookup constants |
*_saturation (initial, field-capacity, wilting) | SMAP / soil props, porosity | – | (clipped) | initial state & drainage/stress thresholds — shift the whole event response |
snow_fraction, rain_depth, snow_depth, swe, water_input | precip, Tmin/Tmax, melt | mm, [time,n] | linear rain–snow partition; 🎛️degree-day melt factor; | splits storm water; snow storage (🎛️ melt factor calibrated vs ERA5 SWE) |
mean/max_recharge, routed_recharge_max, groundwater__recharge_mean/std | daily recharge + routing | mm day⁻¹ | temporal stat; discharge/area; 🎛️std=0.1×mean | direct input to LandslideProbability recharge sampling |
2.2 Liquefaction 🏚️¶
| Derived variable | Computed from | Units | Rule | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total / effective stress , | overburden + water table | kPa | couples hydrology into CSR & CRR | |
| Stress-corrected velocity | , | m s⁻¹ | overburden-normalized rigidity for CRR Andrus & Stokoe, 2000 | |
| Cyclic stress ratio , MSF, | , stresses, , | – | see Liquefaction Model §2 | seismic demand, normalized to a reference |
| CTI / distance-to-water | DEM; hydrography | – | GIS derivations | geospatial GLM saturation proxies Zhu et al., 2015 |
2.3 Statistical / ML-derived layers 📈¶
These are not deterministic rules — they are fitted / machine-learned relationships, so they carry prediction uncertainty that must travel with the value. Several are ingested as §1 “inputs” even though they are model estimates, not observations (§2.4 traces one back to raw).
| Layer / product | Method | Fitted from | Uncertainty it carries |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOLUS100 soil properties | random-forest digital soil mapping Nauman et al., 2024 | hybrid legacy training sets (gNATSGO/SSURGO map-unit means, component-level disaggregation points, NCSS/KSSL lab pedons) regressed on gridded covariates — DEM terrain derivatives (slope, curvature, MRVBF, SAGA wetness index, topographic-position index) and PRISM climate normals + bioclimatic indices | low/high 95% prediction-interval bands (l/h) |
| POLARIS soil properties | statistical downscaling of SSURGO Chaney et al., 2019 | SSURGO polygons + environmental covariates | p5 / p50 / p95 quantiles |
| Proxy | slope– and geology– regression; parametric CONUS Sanger & Maurer, 2025 | measured vs topographic slope / surface geology | large residual scatter — report σ |
The geospatial liquefaction surrogate (§3, §5) and the modeled water table (Zhu GLM, §1) are likewise statistical; their uncertainty is documented on the model pages.
2.4 Worked example — tracing SOLUS back to raw¶
SOLUS is the template for every ingested statistical product: state what it was fitted from, what its native support really is, and what uncertainty it carries, so a downstream modeler can trace any value back to observations.
What it is. SOLUS100 (USDA-NRCS): ML-predicted maps of ~20 soil properties at 100 m (1 ha) over CONUS, at the GlobalSoilMap depths (0, 5, 15, 30, 60, 100, 150 cm), with low/high 95% prediction intervals Nauman et al., 2024.
Raw it descends from (the observations). Laboratory pedon measurements (NCSS/KSSL), plus gNATSGO/SSURGO map-unit weighted averages and component-level “disaggregation” training points — a hybrid training set. These point/polygon observations are related to the landscape through gridded environmental covariates: DEM terrain derivatives (slope, curvature, MRVBF, SAGA wetness index, topographic-position index) and PRISM 30-year climate normals (precipitation, temperature, vapor-pressure deficit) plus bioclimatic indices (full stack in the paper’s supplement).
The transform (why it is statistical, not deterministic). A random-forest model maps those covariates → soil property. There is no closed-form rule; the 100 m value is a prediction, and the low/high 95% prediction-interval (
l/h) bands are its uncertainty. Propagate them — do not treat the median as truth.Native support vs posting. Posted at 100 m, but the effective support is coarser and spatially variable — set by training-point density and covariate scale (SSURGO map-unit scale), not by the 100 m grid. This is the §1 “Native support ≠ Posting resolution” distinction made concrete.
Calibration flag. Where a SOLUS property is later tuned to a target (e.g.
ksat_factoron the derived ), that tuned value is a 🎛️ calibration lever, not a SOLUS output — keep the two separate.
Apply the same five-line trace to POLARIS, proxy , and surficial geology before mixing them into a model.
3. Modelled variables & outputs¶
The digital twins exist to produce a fixed, named set of outputs — the canonical output
vocabulary below. Everything else in this section is an intermediate or diagnostic that feeds one
of them. The canonical name is the Landlab field__name (first column); the PascalCase label
is a display alias. Two outputs still carry an input/output dual-role caveat (the earlier name
collision is resolved by the convention note below).
Canonical field name (subject__quantity) | Display label · symbol | Producing model | Units · dims | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
landslide__probability_of_failure | LandslideProbability · | Landlab LandslideProbability component | 0–1 · [n] or [y,x] | — the field the component writes (distinct from the component name) |
liquefaction__potential_index † (+ liquefaction__severity_number † LSN) | LiquefactionPotentialIndex · LPI/LSN | manifestation model Iwasaki et al., 1978Ballegooy et al., 2014 | index | surface-failure severity |
liquefaction__probability † (+ liquefaction__areal_extent †) | GroundFailure · | GLM surrogate Sanger et al., 2025 | 0–1 / extent · [y,x] | probability & extent of liquefaction manifestation |
soil_moisture__saturation_fraction | SoilMoisture | SoilMoisture + PET | m³ m⁻³ / fraction · [time,n] | also the SMAP calibration comparison |
water_table__depth † | GroundWaterLevel · | Pillar 1 reanalysis / groundwater | m · [time,…] | ⚠️ dual role — an output of the reanalysis but an input to the hazard models |
soil__shear_wave_velocity † (+ soil__shear_modulus † ) | SoilRigidity · , | profiles → derived; seismic | m s⁻¹ or Pa | ⚠️ dual role — static is an input, but time-varying / is a reanalysis output (§7) |
Naming convention (decided). The field__name vocabulary is canonical — every output
ships under a Landlab-style subject__quantity name in code, STAC, and Zarr; PascalCase names are
display aliases only (docs, dashboards, product copy), never keys. This resolves the earlier
collision: the model component keeps the class name LandslideProbability, while the output
field it writes is landslide__probability_of_failure — a component and its field are never the
same token. Names marked † are proposed (not yet emitted in code) and should be ratified
before first use; the unmarked fields already exist. Uncertainty for each output is documented on
its model page (Monte-Carlo , GLM surrogate intervals, etc.).
Detailed producing-model breakdown (intermediates and diagnostics included):
| Output | Serves | Producing model | Units / dims | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
soil_moisture__saturation_fraction, …root_zone_leakage, surface__runoff/ET | ⛰️ 🔥 🌊 | SoilMoisture + PET | [time, n_cells] | hydrologic state; recharge source; SMAP comparison |
soil__mean_relative_wetness, …probability_of_saturation | ⛰️ 🔥 | LandslideProbability | 0–1 | wetness / saturation-risk diagnostics |
landslide__probability_of_failure | ⛰️ 🔥 | LandslideProbability | 0–1, [n] or rasterized [y,x] | — primary current landslide target; time/forecast cubes are future extension paths |
| + areal extent | 🏚️ | GLM surrogate Sanger et al., 2025 | 0–1, [y,x] | probability / extent of liquefaction — primary liquefaction target |
| LPI / LSN | 🏚️ | manifestation model Iwasaki et al., 1978Ballegooy et al., 2014 | index | surface severity / damage |
| Return-period liquefaction hazard | 🏚️ | unconditional integration over NSHM | rate / 50-yr prob. | planning baseline |
4. Data-prep pipelines¶
4.1 Landslide (Landlab) ⛰️ 🔥¶
A. domain AOI → watershed / HUC polygon; target CRS + resolution; hydrologically coherent domain; watershed outlet preferred
B. acquire DEM · SOLUS100|POLARIS soil · NLCD landcover (+ MTBS burn severity — post-fire only)
C. harmonize reproject + resample to ONE grid contract; nodata; manifest
D. derive slope, specific contributing area (FlowAccumulator on the CLOSED watershed);
import or harmonize φ and cohesion rasters; Ksat → transmissivity; landcover → PFT → LAI; Ksat → transmissivity; landcover → PFT → LAI
E. PRISM (hindcast/current workflow) | Earth2Studio tp/APCP (future forecast path) → mm/day → snow → balance → recharge
F. soil state deep-seated: import water-table h(x,t) + S_w from Pillar 1; init S0 from SMAP
G. validate input contract: shape · CRS · transform · nodata · units · required fields
H. publish COG / Zarr on s3://cresst + STAC items with source·measurement·res·uncertaintyClose the hydrology first (clip to a watershed with a single outlet — see
Landslide Model §5); do not prepare on arbitrary tiles. Inputs are
still read from hardcoded local paths in the active notebook; de-personalizing and sourcing from
STAC (solus-stac, prism-stac, gaia-cli stage) is the migration in the
Integration Guide §3.
4.2 Liquefaction (GLM) 🏚️¶
A. domain AOI / region; target CRS + resolution (high-res even for static layers)
B. acquire Vs30/Vs profiles · water table (Pillar 1) · geology · ShakeMap | NSHM ground motion
C. harmonize reproject + resample to one grid contract; manifest + provenance
D. derive effective stress σ'v (from water table) · Vs1 · CSR · saturation proxies
E. condition conditional GLM P(liq|IM) → (unconditional: integrate over NSHM;
event: apply ShakeMap IM field)
F. dynamic couple groundwater (sea-level / seasonal) + time-varying Vs/κ0 (§7 open question)
G. validate input contract: shape · CRS · units · required fields
H. publish COG / Zarr on s3://cresst + STAC itemsThe high-resolution requirement (even for static , geology, water table) is central: liquefaction is controlled by meter-scale contrasts, so coarse inputs systematically smear hazard.
5. Models behind the products¶
Each derived/modelled product is generated by a model component. Full physics and solved-vs-assumed breakdowns are on the model pages (Landslide Model, Liquefaction Model).
Landlab
LandslideProbability⛰️ 🔥 — infinite-slope + Monte Carlo Strauch et al., 2018; assumes planar failure, steady-state topographic wetness Beven & Kirkby, 1979Montgomery & Dietrich, 1994. Shallow vs deep-seated = a swapped hydrology closure, not a different model.Ecohydrology
SoilMoisture+ PET / snow /FlowAccumulator⛰️ 🔥 🌊 — root-zone water balance, snow partition, and flow routing that produce recharge and the hydrologic state.Geospatial liquefaction surrogate 🏚️ — mechanics-informed ML emulating the simplified-procedure FS at national scale Sanger et al., 2025Zhu et al., 2017, with manifestation fragility Geyin & Maurer, 2020Maurer et al., 2015; consumes , water table, ground motion.
Forecast weather leg — NVIDIA Earth2Studio ⛰️ 🔥 🌊 🏚️ — a weather-provider branch (GraphCast / AIFS / StormCast) supplying forecast precipitation (and groundwater forcing for liquefaction); not a hazard model itself.
6. Calibration targets¶
| Observable target | Serves | Best constrains | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| SMAP daily soil moisture | ⛰️ 🏚️ | initial saturation, ksat_factor, root-zone depths | High |
| ERA5 SWE | ⛰️ 🌊 | snow partition & melt parameters | High (winter) |
| Mapped landslide initiation | ⛰️ | recharge scenario, cohesion, strength, transmissivity | Highest (landslide) |
| Geotech case histories / observed liquefaction maps | 🏚️ | GLM surrogate, manifestation fragility, / water-table inputs | Highest (liquefaction) |
| Runoff / streamflow (if available) | ⛰️ 🌊 | hydrologic partitioning, recharge realism | High when available |
number_of_iterations (landslide Monte Carlo) is a convergence knob, not a calibration
parameter.
7. Known gaps, risks & sensitivities¶
CRS leakage. Local
.ascstacks lack an embedded CRS; GeoTIFF/Zarr outputs must carry CRS explicitly.Soil-vocabulary mismatch. POLARIS and SOLUS differ in variables, depths, statistics, and units — a conversion table is required before mixing them.
Static vs dynamic water table. Most GLMs use a static modeled water table; GAIA’s contribution is the dynamic (seasonal, sea-level rise) from Pillar 1 — distinguish the two.
Time-varying site term. / are not yet wired into the NSHM-based unconditional liquefaction product (the open question in Liquefaction Model §5).
proxy uncertainty. Slope/geology carries large scatter; parametric profiles Sanger & Maurer, 2025 reduce but do not remove it.
Precip accumulation. AI-weather precip may be cumulative or stepwise; daily-recharge conversion must be tested per model.
Cost & tiling. High-resolution everywhere in the PNW daily is expensive; use watersheds for routing, tiles only for storage; surrogates for acceleration.
Access sensitivities. OpenTopography (key), PRISM 800 m (license), SMAP (Earthdata), ERA5 (CDS), Synoptic (token), and some hazard-inventory locations (withheld) — recorded per-layer in the Limitations column of §1 (there is no separate access column).
Related¶
Landslides · Post-fire debris flows · Liquefaction & Ground Failure — the hazard pages.
Landslide Model · Liquefaction Model — the model pages whose outputs and inputs this inventory catalogs.
DataHub · DataHub Integration Guide — platform, provenance standard, and repo migration path.
Pillar 1 — Soil Reanalysis Product — the dynamic soil-state source.
Repos:
landlab-debrisflow·landslide-digital-twin·da-seis-groundfailure·gaia-nhsm-deagg·gaia-cli·solus-stac·prism-stac.
- Sanger, M. D., & Maurer, B. W. (2025). Parametric modeling of shear wave velocity profiles for the conterminous U.S. 10.48550/arXiv.2510.00372
- Petersen, M. D., Shumway, A. M., Powers, P. M., Field, E. H., Moschetti, M. P., Jaiswal, K. S., & others. (2024). The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications. Earthquake Spectra, 40(1), 5–88. 10.1177/87552930231215428
- Anderson, J. G., & Hough, S. E. (1984). A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74(5), 1969–1993.
- Händel, A., Pilz, M., Malatesta, L. C., Litwin, D., & Cotton, F. (2025). Detecting seasonal differences in high-frequency site response using kappa-zero. Seismica, 4(1). 10.26443/seismica.v4i1.1425
- van Ballegooy, S., Malan, P., Lacrosse, V., Jacka, M. E., Cubrinovski, M., Bray, J. D., O’Rourke, T. D., Crawford, S. A., & Cowan, H. (2014). Assessment of Liquefaction-Induced Land Damage for Residential Christchurch. Earthquake Spectra, 30(1), 31–55. 10.1193/031813EQS070M
- Andrus, R. D., & Stokoe, K. H. (2000). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils from Shear-Wave Velocity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126(11), 1015–1025. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:11(1015)
- Zhu, J., Daley, D., Baise, L. G., Thompson, E. M., Wald, D. J., & Knudsen, K. L. (2015). A Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Rapid Response and Loss Estimation. Earthquake Spectra, 31(3), 1813–1837. 10.1193/121912EQS353M
- Nauman, T. W., Kienast-Brown, S., Roecker, S. M., Brungard, C., White, D., Philippe, J., & Thompson, J. A. (2024). Soil landscapes of the United States (SOLUS): Developing predictive soil property maps of the conterminous United States using hybrid training sets. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 88(6), 2046–2065. 10.1002/saj2.20769
- Chaney, N. W., Minasny, B., Herman, J. D., Nauman, T. W., & others. (2019). POLARIS Soil Properties: 30-m Probabilistic Maps of Soil Properties Over the Contiguous United States. Water Resources Research, 55(4), 2916–2938. 10.1029/2018WR022797
- Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., Tokida, K., & Yasuda, S. (1978). A Practical Method for Assessing Soil Liquefaction Potential Based on Case Studies at Various Sites in Japan. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Microzonation for Safer Construction, 2, 885–896.
- Sanger, M. D., Geyin, M., & Maurer, B. W. (2025). Mechanics-Informed Machine Learning for Geospatial Modeling of Soil Liquefaction: Global and National Surrogate Models for Simulation and Near-Real-Time Response. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 151(11), 04025126. 10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-13737
- Strauch, R., Istanbulluoglu, E., Nudurupati, S. S., Bandaragoda, C., Gasparini, N. M., & Tucker, G. E. (2018). A hydroclimatological approach to predicting regional landslide probability using Landlab. Earth Surface Dynamics, 6, 49–75. 10.5194/esurf-6-49-2018
- Beven, K. J., & Kirkby, M. J. (1979). A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 24(1), 43–69. 10.1080/02626667909491834
- Montgomery, D. R., & Dietrich, W. E. (1994). A physically based model for the topographic control on shallow landsliding. Water Resources Research, 30(4), 1153–1171. 10.1029/93WR02979
- Zhu, J., Baise, L. G., & Thompson, E. M. (2017). An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 107(3), 1365–1385. 10.1785/0120160198