Graph Representations for Slope Instability and Landslide Kinematics: From Fracture Networks to Physics-Informed Graph Learning

Abstract

Slope instability develops through connected processes: discontinuities intersect, blocks transfer load, water follows preferential pathways, and deformation propagates between parts of a slope. Many conventional methods represent these components separately, which can obscure the relationships that control failure and movement. This narrative review examines how graph representations can provide a common language for slope stability and landslide kinematics. Four application layers are examined: fracture and discontinuity graphs, sensor and monitoring graphs, spatiotemporal deformation graphs, and physics-informed graph neural networks. The article first introduces nodes, edges, adjacency matrices, graph Laplacians, message passing, and graph convolution in accessible language. It then compares how graph structure has been used to describe rock-mass topology, combine distributed observations, forecast displacement, and couple data-driven learning with geotechnical and hydrological constraints. The synthesis shows that graph methods are most useful when edges express a defensible structural, mechanical, hydrological, or observational relationship. Evidence maturity is uneven: fracture topology and monitoring-network design are comparatively established, graph-based displacement forecasting is growing but remains case-dependent, and physics-informed graph learning is still emerging. A multiscale framework is proposed to connect fracture-scale mechanisms, slope-scale monitoring, and regional decision support. Priority needs include benchmark datasets, uncertainty-aware graph construction, physically meaningful edge design, spatial and temporal holdout testing, cross-site validation, and transparent comparison with non-graph baselines.

Introduction

This paper presents graph theory as a powerful framework for understanding and predicting landslide behavior, where different parts of a slope interact through fractures, water flow, stress transfer, and deformation. Unlike conventional methods that analyze slopes as isolated points, graph theory models a landslide as a network of nodes (such as rock blocks, fracture intersections, monitoring stations, or slope units) connected by edges representing physical or functional relationships. This enables the representation of complex, multiscale interactions that influence slope stability.

The paper reviews the foundations of graph theory, including graphs, adjacency matrices, node degree, graph Laplacians, and graph neural networks (GNNs). It distinguishes between classical graph analysis, network analysis, conventional machine learning, GNNs, and physics-informed GNNs, which combine graph learning with physical laws governing slope mechanics. GNNs learn from both node attributes and their connectivity, making them particularly suitable for landslide monitoring, where deformation patterns are spatially connected and monitoring data are irregularly distributed. The paper also highlights the importance of ensuring that graph structures represent real geological and mechanical processes rather than arbitrary computational connections.

The study further discusses the application of graph representations to fracture networks, discontinuity systems, monitoring networks, and slope stability analysis. By modeling fractures, rock blocks, and soil columns as interconnected networks, graph-based methods can identify critical pathways, failure zones, and progressive landslide development. The authors propose a unified framework that integrates geological structure, monitoring observations, deformation dynamics, and physical stability models, arguing that graph theory is most valuable when it serves as a physically meaningful bridge between field observations, engineering analysis, and machine learning for improved landslide prediction and risk assessment.

Conclusion

Graph representations offer a coherent way to describe the connected nature of slope instability and landslide movement. At the structural scale, graphs represent fractures, blocks, contacts, and possible release pathways. At the monitoring scale, they connect distributed sensors and remote-sensing observations. At the kinematic scale, dynamic graphs represent propagation, time lags, and changing deformation domains. At the modeling scale, graph learning can be combined with mechanical and hydrological constraints. The central lesson is that a graph is scientifically useful only when its nodes and edges have defensible meaning. The strongest near-term advances will come from uncertainty-aware topology, physically meaningful edge design, transparent comparison with conventional methods, and external validation across time and sites. A multiscale framework linking fracture mechanisms, slope-scale observations, and regional decision support is promising, but it should be developed incrementally and tested against field evidence rather than presented as a fully mature operational solution.

References

[1] S. Akosah, I. Gratchev, D.-H. Kim, and S.-Y. Ohn, “Application of artificial intelligence and remote sensing for landslide detection and prediction: Systematic review,” Remote Sensing, vol. 16, no. 16, Art. no. 2947, 2024, doi: 10.3390/rs16162947. [2] J. Cai, G. Liu, H. Jia, R. Zhang, et al., “A new algorithm for landslide dynamic monitoring with high temporal resolution by Kalman filter integration of multiplatform time-series InSAR processing,” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, vol. 110, Art. no. 102812, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2022.102812. [3] F. R. K. Chung, Spectral Graph Theory. Providence, RI, USA: American Mathematical Society, 1997. [4] A. Dahal and L. Lombardo, “Towards physics-informed neural networks for landslide prediction,” Engineering Geology, Art. no. 107852, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2024.107852. [5] M. K. Elmouttie and G. V. Poropat, “Quasi-stochastic analysis of uncertainty for modelling structurally controlled failures,” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 47, pp. 2115–2131, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s00603-013-0410-y. [6] J. Gilmer, S. S. Schoenholz, P. F. Riley, O. Vinyals, and G. E. Dahl, “Neural message passing for quantum chemistry,” in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 70, 2017, pp. 1263–1272. [7] P. Giri, K. Ng, and W. Phillips, “Wireless sensor network system for landslide monitoring and warning,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 1210–1220, 2019, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2018.2861999. [8] L. Guo, X. Li, Y. Zhou, and Y. Zhang, “Generation and verification of three-dimensional network of fractured rock masses stochastic discontinuities based on digitalization,” Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 73, pp. 7075–7088, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s12665-015-4175-3. [9] M. Havaej, J. Coggan, D. Stead, and D. Elmo, “A combined remote sensing–numerical modelling approach to the stability analysis of Delabole Slate Quarry, Cornwall, UK,” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 49, pp. 1227–1245, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s00603-015-0805-z. [10] T. Heckmann, W. Schwanghart, and J. D. Phillips, “Graph theory—Recent developments of its application in geomorphology,” Geomorphology, vol. 243, pp. 130–146, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.12.024. [11] Y. Jiang, H. Luo, Q. Xu, L. Hao, et al., “A graph convolutional incorporating GRU network for landslide displacement forecasting based on spatiotemporal analysis of GNSS observations,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 4, Art. no. 1016, 2022, doi: 10.3390/rs14041016. [12] T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. [13] A. Kumar, B. Pandit, and G. Tiwari, “Reliability-based stability analysis of large rock slopes with different failure mechanisms using response surface methodology,” Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 81, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s12665-022-10624-1. [14] J. Li, J. Qin, K. Kang, X. Ding, et al., “Enhanced spatiotemporal landslide displacement prediction using dynamic graph-optimized GNSS monitoring,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 15, Art. no. 4754, 2025, doi: 10.3390/s25154754. [15] P. Lima, S. Steger, T. Glade, and F. G. Murillo-García, “Literature review and bibliometric analysis on data-driven assessment of landslide susceptibility,” Journal of Mountain Science, vol. 19, pp. 1670–1698, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11629-021-7254-9. [16] X. Ma, “Knowledge graph construction and application in geosciences: A review,” Computers & Geosciences, vol. 161, Art. no. 105082, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2022.105082. [17] M. E. J. Newman, Networks: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010. [18] J. D. Phillips, W. Schwanghart, and T. Heckmann, “Graph theory in the geosciences,” Earth-Science Reviews, vol. 143, pp. 147–160, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.02.002. [19] M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 378, pp. 686–707, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045. [20] M. Ragnoli, M. Scarsella, A. Leoni, V. Stornelli, et al., “Wireless sensor network-based rockfall and landslide monitoring systems: A review,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 16, Art. no. 7278, 2023, doi: 10.3390/s23167278. [21] D. J. Sanderson, D. C. P. Peacock, C. W. Nixon, and A. Rotevatn, “Graph theory and the analysis of fracture networks,” Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 125, pp. 155–165, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jsg.2018.04.011. [22] G. Sannino, M. Bordoni, M. Bittelli, R. Valentino, et al., “Deterministic physically based distributed models for rainfall-induced shallow landslides,” Geosciences, vol. 14, no. 10, Art. no. 255, 2024, doi: 10.3390/geosciences14100255. [23] W. H. Schulz, J. A. Coe, P. P. Ricci, J. Panosky, et al., “Landslide kinematics and their potential controls from hourly to decadal timescales: Insights from integrating ground-based InSAR measurements with structural maps and long-term monitoring data,” Geomorphology, vol. 285, pp. 121–136, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.02.011. [24] P. Veli?kovi?, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Liò, and Y. Bengio, “Graph attention networks,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018. [25] C. Vanneschi, A. Rindinella, and R. Salvini, “Hazard assessment of rocky slopes: An integrated photogrammetry–GIS approach including fracture density and probability of failure data,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 6, Art. no. 1438, 2022, doi: 10.3390/rs14061438. [26] Z. Wang, X. Fang, W. Zhang, C. Chen, et al., “Multi-relation spatiotemporal graph residual network model with multi-level feature attention: A novel approach for landslide displacement prediction,” Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2024.09.038. [27] D. K. Yadav, S. Jayanthu, S. K. Das, P. Mishra, et al., “Critical review on slope monitoring systems with a vision of unifying wireless sensor networks and the Internet of Things,” IET Wireless Sensor Systems, vol. 9, pp. 167–180, 2019, doi: 10.1049/iet-wss.2018.5197. [28] C. Yang, Y. Yin, J. Zhang, J. Liu, et al., “A graph deep learning method for landslide displacement prediction based on global navigation satellite system positioning,” Geoscience Frontiers, vol. 15, Art. no. 101690, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101690. [29] Z. Zhang, B. Wang, Z. Li, and D. Dias, “Physics-guided neural network-based framework for 3D modeling of slope stability,” Computers and Geotechnics, Art. no. 106801, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2024.106801.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Mohit Sheode. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.