The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A comparative assessment of flood susceptibility modeling using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis and Machine Learning Methods
Abstract
Abstract Floods around the world are having devastating effects on human life and property. In this paper, three Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) analysis techniques (VIKOR, TOPSIS and SAW), along with two machine learning methods (NBT and NB), were tested for their ability to model flood susceptibility in one of China’s most flood-prone areas, the Ningdu Catchment. Twelve flood conditioning factors were used as input parameters: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), lithology, land use, distance from river, curvature, altitude, Stream Transport Index (STI), Topographic Wetness Index (TWI), Stream Power Index (SPI), soil type, slope and rainfall. The predictive capacity of the models was evaluated and validated using the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC). While all models showed a strong flood prediction capability (AUC > 0.95), the NBT model performed best (AUC = 0.98), suggesting that, among the models studied, the NBT model is a promising tool for the assessment of flood-prone areas and can allow for proper planning and management of flood hazards.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Root mean square error or mean absolute error? Use their ratio as well
Karunasingha, D. S. K. (2022) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2021.11.036 · Cited by 730
XGBoost-based method for flash flood risk assessment
Ma, M., Zhao, G., He, B., Li, Q., Dong, H., Wang, S., & Wang, Z. (2021) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126382 · Cited by 489
Gudiyangada Nachappa, T., Tavakkoli Piralilou, S., Gholamnia, K., Ghorbanzadeh, O., Rahmati, O., & Blaschke, T. (2020) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125275 · Cited by 401
Duan, J., Asteris, P. G., Nguyen, H., Bui, X.-N., & Moayedi, H. (2021) · Engineering with Computers · doi:10.1007/s00366-020-01003-0 · Cited by 357
Flood susceptibility mapping using convolutional neural network frameworks
Wang, Y., Fang, Z., Hong, H., & Peng, L. (2020) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124482 · Cited by 339
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Khosravi, K., Shahabi, H., Pham, B. T., Adamowski, J., Shirzadi, A., Pradhan, B., Dou, J., Ly, H.-B., Gróf, G., Ho, H. L., Hong, H., Chapi, K., & Prakash, I.
- Venue
- Journal of Hydrology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-06
- Volume
- 573
- Pages
- 311-323
- ISSN
- 0022-1694 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2927539500
- Cited by
- 744
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 37.78
- 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: A comparative assessment of flood susceptibility modeling using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis and Machine Learning Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.073
- The paper
- Khosravi, K., Shahabi, H., Pham, B. T., Adamowski, J., Shirzadi, A., Pradhan, B., Dou, J., Ly, H.-B., Gróf, G., Ho, H. L., Hong, H., Chapi, K., & Prakash, I. (2019). A comparative assessment of flood susceptibility modeling using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis and Machine Learning Methods. Journal of Hydrology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.073
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.
