Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 642

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hybrid decision tree-based machine learning models for short-term water quality prediction

Lu, Hongfang, Ma, Xin·2020·Chemosphere

Abstract

Water resources are the foundation of people's life and economic development, and are closely related to health and the environment. Accurate prediction of water quality is the key to improving water management and pollution control. In this paper, two novel hybrid decision tree-based machine learning models are proposed to obtain more accurate short-term water quality prediction results. The basic models of the two hybrid models are extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and random forest (RF), which respectively introduce an advanced data denoising technique - complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise (CEEMDAN). Taking the water resources of Gales Creek site in Tualatin River (one of the most polluted rivers in the world) Basin as an example, a total of 1875 data (hourly data) from May 1, 2019 to July 20, 2019 are collected. Two hybrid models are used to predict six water quality indicators, including water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH value, specific conductance, turbidity, and fluorescent dissolved organic matter. Six error metrics are introduced as the basis of performance evaluation, and the results of the two models are compared with the other four conventional models. The results reveal that: (1) CEEMDAN-RF performs best in the prediction of temperature, dissolved oxygen and specific conductance, the mean absolute percentage errors (MAPEs) are 0.69%, 1.05%, and 0.90%, respectively. CEEMDAN-XGBoost performs best in the prediction of pH value, turbidity, and fluorescent dissolved organic matter, the MAPEs are 0.27%, 14.94%, and 1.59%, respectively. (2) The average MAPEs of CEEMDAN-RF and CEEMMDAN-XGBoost models are the smallest, which are 3.90% and 3.71% respectively, indicating that their overall prediction performance is the best. In addition, the stability of the prediction model is also discussed in this paper. The analysis shows that the prediction stability of CEEMDAN-RF and CEEMDAN-XGBoost is higher than other benchmark models.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126169

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 642

Metadata

Authors
Lu, H., & Ma, X.
Venue
Chemosphere
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
249
Pages
126169
ISSN
0045-6535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3006101764
Cited by
642
References
1
FWCI
28.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hybrid decision tree-based machine learning models for short-term water quality prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126169
The paper
Lu, H., & Ma, X. (2020). Hybrid decision tree-based machine learning models for short-term water quality prediction. Chemosphere. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126169

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.