journal article·2025-12-29Open access

A Tabular Data Augmentation Framework Based on Error-Focused XAI-Supported Weighting Strategy: Application to Soil Liquefaction Classification

Engin Nacaroglu, Ayse Tuba Tugrul, Berk Yagcioglu

Applied Sciences· Volume 16· Issue 1

Abstract

In tabular liquefaction datasets, data augmentation plays a crucial role in enhancing the classification performance of machine learning models. In this study, an XAI-supported, error-focused, weighting-based data augmentation framework is proposed to improve CPT-based soil liquefaction classification in data-limited case-history settings by leveraging feedback from test misclassifications. First, it is hypothesized that test errors are non-random and that certain features contributed the most to misclassifications. Accordingly, a SHAP-based error-contribution score approach was developed to identify error-contributing features. The core of the proposed framework relies on assigning weights to error-contributing features. This targeted weighting was employed in two components: (i) clustering to select training samples for augmentation; and (ii) noise injection applied only in difficult-to-predict regions. To this end, test errors were combined with the training data, and weighted Fuzzy C-Means clustering was applied by assigning a weight of 1.5 to the distance metric in the error-contributing features. Clusters where test errors were concentrated were therefore defined as “difficult-to-predict regions”. In these clusters, noise was injected into the error-contributing features with 1.5× higher amplitude. This design directly integrated XAI-based error explanations into the data augmentation process, enabling targeted augmentation in difficult-to-predict regions. Consequently, the decision boundaries of the models became sharper, particularly in the error-contributing features. The Random Forest model achieved the highest improvement, with its F1 score increasing by 0.019. These findings demonstrate that the proposed framework enhances classification performance for tabular liquefaction data.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics · Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization · Geotechnical Engineering and Analysis

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Kınıklı Campus, Pamukkale University, 20070 Denizli, Türkiye

Funding

TÜBİTAK BİDEB 2211-A scholarship program

References (60)

Show source-provided references
1. The aftermath of 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquakes: Evaluation of strong motion data, geotechnical, building, and infrastructure issues10.1007/s11069-024-06890-w ↗
2. Liquefaction and performance of foundation systems in Iskenderun during 2023 Kahramanmaras-Turkiye earthquake sequence10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108433 ↗
3. Analysis of soil liquefaction: Niigata earthquake10.1061/JSFEAQ.0000981 ↗
4. Dobry, R. (1982). Prediction of Pore Water Pressure Buildup and Liquefaction of Sands During Earthquakes by the Cyclic Strain Method, US Department of Commerce.10.6028/NBS.BSS.138 ↗
5. Energy dissipation and seismic liquefaction of sands: Revised model10.3208/sandf1972.25.2_106 ↗
6. Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E., Kammerer, A.M., Wu, J., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M.F., Sancio, R.B., Bray, R.R., and Kayen, R.R. (2003, January 30). Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: A unified and consistent framework. Proceedings of the 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Long Beach, CA, USA.
7. Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817) ↗
8. Bray, J.D., Sancio, R.B., Riemer, M.F., and Durgunoglu, T. (2004, January 7–9). Liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering and 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Berkeley, CA, USA.
9. Simplified procedures for assessing soil liquefaction during earthquakes
10. The Mechanism and A Simplified Procedure for the Analysis of Permanent Ground Displacement due to Liquefaction10.3208/sandf1972.32.149 ↗
11. Liquefaction Potential Assessment of Soils Using Machine Learning Techniques: A State-of-the-Art Review from 1994–202110.1061/IJGNAI.GMENG-7788 ↗
12. Explainable machine learning model for liquefaction potential assessment of soils using XGBoost-SHAP10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107662 ↗
13. Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., Tokida, K., and Yasuda, S. (December, January 26). A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Microzonation for Safer Construction—Research and Application, San Francisco, CA, USA.
14. Liquefaction potential index: Field assessment10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:4(315) ↗
15. Evaluation of CPT-based liquefaction procedures at regional scale10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.09.016 ↗
16. Segmented pipeline damage predictions using liquefaction vulnerability parameters10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105758 ↗
17. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (2015). Canterbury Earthquake Sequence: Increased Liquefaction Vulnerability Assessment Methodology, Tonkin & Taylor Ltd.. Report No. 52010.140.v1.0.
18. Assessment of liquefaction potential using neural networks10.1016/0267-7261(93)90035-P ↗
19. Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:9(1467) ↗
20. Predicting seismic-induced liquefaction through ensemble learning frameworks10.1038/s41598-019-48044-0 ↗
21. Deep Learning-Based Enhancement of Small Sample Liquefaction Data10.1061/IJGNAI.GMENG-8381 ↗
22. Preethaa, S., Natarajan, Y., Rathinakumar, A.P., Lee, D.E., Choi, Y., Park, Y.J., and Yi, C.Y. (2022). A stacked generalization model to enhance prediction of earthquake-induced soil liquefaction. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22197292 ↗
23. Liquefied sites of the 2012 Emilia earthquake: A comprehensive database of the geological and geotechnical features (Quaternary alluvial Po plain, Italy)10.1007/s10518-022-01338-7 ↗
24. Hudson, K.S., Zimmaro, P., Ulmer, K., Brandenberg, S.J., Stewart, J.P., and Kramer, S.L. (2022, January 15–17). Laboratory component of next-generation liquefaction project database. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Beijing, China.10.1007/978-3-031-11898-2_170 ↗
25. Zhang, X., He, B., Sabri, M.M.S., Al-Bahrani, M., and Ulrikh, D.V. (2022). Soil liquefaction prediction based on Bayesian optimization and support vector machines. Sustainability, 14.10.3390/su141911944 ↗
26. De La Calleja, J., Fuentes, O., and González, J. (2008, January 15–17). Selecting minority examples from misclassified data for over-sampling. Proceedings of the Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society International Conference (FLAIRS), Coconut Grove, FL, USA.
27. Khmaissia, F., and Frigui, H. (2022). Confidence-guided data augmentation for improved semi-supervised training. arXiv.
28. Apicella, A., Giugliano, S., Isgrò, F., and Prevete, R. (2023, January 6–9). SHAP-based explanations to improve classification systems. Proceedings of the Italian Workshop on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI.it@AIxIA 2023), Rome, Italy.10.1007/978-3-031-44064-9_9 ↗
29. Boulanger, R.W., and Idriss, I.M. (2014). CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California. Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01;.
30. Simplified Cone Penetration Test-based method for evaluating liquefaction resistance of soils10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:1(66) ↗
31. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives10.1109/TPAMI.2013.50 ↗
32. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test10.1139/t98-017 ↗
33. Interpretation of cone penetration tests—A unified approach10.1139/T09-065 ↗
34. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662 ↗
35. Idriss, I.M. (1999, January 10). An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential. Proceedings of the TRB Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction, Washington, DC, USA. No. FHWARD-99-165.
36. Bagging predictors10.1023/A:1018054314350 ↗
37. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting10.1006/jcss.1997.1504 ↗
38. Chen, C., Liaw, A., and Breiman, L. (2004). Using Random Forest to Learn Imbalanced Data, Department of Statistics, University of California. Technical Report 666.
39. Rotation forest: A new classifier ensemble method10.1109/TPAMI.2006.211 ↗
40. Extremely randomized trees10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1 ↗
41. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine10.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
42. Chen, T., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
43. LightGBM: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree
44. CatBoost: Unbiased boosting with categorical features
45. Islam, S.M.M., Hossain, S.M.M., and Ray, S. (2021). DTI-SNNFRA: Drug-target interaction prediction by shared nearest neighbors and fuzzy-rough approximation. PLoS ONE, 16.10.1371/journal.pone.0246920 ↗
46. Weng, Y., Liu, Y., and Chuang, H.-H. (2025). Intelligent Assessment of Scientific Creativity by Integrating Data Augmentation and Pseudo-Labeling. Information, 16.10.3390/info16090785 ↗
47. Nguyen, H.A.T., Pham, D.H., and Ahn, Y. (2024). Effect of Data Augmentation Using Deep Learning on Predictive Models for Geopolymer Compressive Strength. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14093601 ↗
48. Improving the performance of the decision boundary making algorithm via outlier detection
49. Liu, F.T., Ting, K.M., and Zhou, Z.H. (2008, January 15–19). Isolation forest. Proceedings of the 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, Pisa, Italy.10.1109/ICDM.2008.17 ↗
50. Guyon, I., Luxburg, U.V., Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Fergus, R., Vishwanathan, S., and Garnett, R. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, Curran Associates, Inc.
51. Gilpin, L.H., Bau, D., Yuan, B.Z., Bajwa, A., Specter, M., and Kagal, L. (2018, January 1–4). Explaining explanations: An overview of interpretability of machine learning. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), Turin, Italy.10.1109/DSAA.2018.00018 ↗
52. Targeted data augmentation for improving model robustness
53. An efficiency-driven, correlation-based feature elimination strategy for small datasets10.1063/5.0118207 ↗
54. Mali, N., Dutt, V., and Uday, K.V. (2021). Determining the Geotechnical Slope Failure Factors via Ensemble and Individual Machine Learning Techniques: A Case Study in Mandi, India. Front. Earth Sci., 9.10.3389/feart.2021.701837 ↗
55. Dynamical optimal training for interval type-2 fuzzy neural network (T2FNN)10.1109/TSMCB.2004.825927 ↗
56. Zhou, P., Qi, Z., Zheng, S., Xu, J., Bao, H., and Xu, B. (2016). Text classification improved by integrating bidirectional LSTM with two-dimensional max pooling. arXiv.
57. Interval type-2 fuzzy model predictive control of nonlinear networked control systems10.1109/TFUZZ.2015.2417975 ↗
58. Cubuk, E.D., Zoph, B., Mane, D., Vasudevan, V., and Le, Q.V. (2019, January 15–20). AutoAugment: Learning augmentation strategies from data. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Long Beach, CA, USA.10.1109/CVPR.2019.00020 ↗
59. Wong, S.C., Gatt, A., Stamatescu, V., and McDonnell, M.D. (December, January 30). Understanding data augmentation for classification: When to warp?. Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications (DICTA), Gold Coast, Australia.10.1109/DICTA.2016.7797091 ↗
60. Madry, A., Makelov, A., Schmidt, L., Tsipras, D., and Vladu, A. (2019). Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks. arXiv, 1706.06083.