Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Flood susceptibility modelling using novel hybrid approach of reduced-error pruning trees with bagging and random subspace ensembles

Chen, Wei, Hong, Haoyuan, Li, Shaojun, Shahabi, Himan, Wang, Yi, Wang, Xiaojing, Ahmad, Baharin Bin·2019·Journal of Hydrology

Abstract

Abstract Flooding is a very common natural hazard that causes catastrophic effects worldwide. Recently, ensemble-based techniques have become popular in flood susceptibility modelling due to their greater strength and efficiency in the prediction of flood locations. Thus, the aim of this study was to employ machine learning-based Reduced-error pruning trees (REPTree) with Bagging (Bag-REPTree) and Random subspace (RS-REPTree) ensemble frameworks for spatial prediction of flood susceptibility using a geographic information system (GIS). First, a flood spatial database was constructed with 363 flood locations and thirteen flood influencing factors, namely altitude, slope angle, slope aspect, curvature, stream power index (SPI), sediment transport index (STI), topographic wetness index (TWI), distance to rivers, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), soil, land use, lithology, and rainfall. Subsequently, correlation attribute evaluation (CAE) was used as the factor selection method for optimization of input factors. Finally, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, standard error (SE), confidence interval (CI) at 95%, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to validate and compare the performance of the models. Results show that the RS-REPTree model has the highest prediction capability for flood susceptibility assessment, with the highest area under (the ROC) curve (AUC) value (0.949, 0.907), the smallest SE (0.011, 0.023), and the narrowest CI (95%) (0.928–0.970, 0.863–0.952) for the training and validation datasets. It was followed by the Bag-REPTree and REPTree models, respectively. The results also proved the superiority of the ensemble method over using these methods individually.

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.jhydrol.2019.05.089

Cites

47 of 47 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 47 references

Metadata

Authors
Chen, W., Hong, H., Li, S., Shahabi, H., Wang, Y., Wang, X., & Ahmad, B. B.
Venue
Journal of Hydrology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
575
Pages
864-873
ISSN
0022-1694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2947721686
Cited by
308
References
47
FWCI
21.30
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: Flood susceptibility modelling using novel hybrid approach of reduced-error pruning trees with bagging and random subspace ensembles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.089
The paper
Chen, W., Hong, H., Li, S., Shahabi, H., Wang, Y., Wang, X., & Ahmad, B. B. (2019). Flood susceptibility modelling using novel hybrid approach of reduced-error pruning trees with bagging and random subspace ensembles. Journal of Hydrology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.089

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.