The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparative assessment of decision trees algorithms for flash flood susceptibility modeling at Haraz watershed, northern Iran
Abstract
Floods are one of the most damaging natural hazards causing huge loss of property, infrastructure and lives. Prediction of occurrence of flash flood locations is very difficult due to sudden change in climatic condition and manmade factors. However, prior identification of flood susceptible areas can be done with the help of machine learning techniques for proper timely management of flood hazards. In this study, we tested four decision trees based machine learning models namely Logistic Model Trees (LMT), Reduced Error Pruning Trees (REPT), Naïve Bayes Trees (NBT), and Alternating Decision Trees (ADT) for flash flood susceptibility mapping at the Haraz Watershed in the northern part of Iran. For this, a spatial database was constructed with 201 present and past flood locations and eleven flood-influencing factors namely ground slope, altitude, curvature, Stream Power Index (SPI), Topographic Wetness Index (TWI), land use, rainfall, river density, distance from river, lithology, and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). Statistical evaluation measures, the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, and Freidman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to validate and compare the prediction capability of the models. Results show that the ADT model has the highest prediction capability for flash flood susceptibility assessment, followed by the NBT, the LMT, and the REPT, respectively. These techniques have proven successful in quickly determining flood susceptible areas.
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
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance
Friedman, M. (1937) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522 · Cited by 7,005
Cited by
A survey on river water quality modelling using artificial intelligence models: 2000–2020
Tiyasha, Tung, T. M., & Yaseen, Z. M. (2020) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124670 · Cited by 650
Chen, W., Li, H., Hou, E., Wang, S., Wang, G., Panahi, M., Li, T., Peng, T., Guo, C., Niu, C., et al. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.055 · Cited by 341
Fang, Z., Wang, Y., Peng, L., & Hong, H. (2020) · Computers & Geosciences · doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2020.104470 · Cited by 322
Flood Susceptibility Mapping through the GIS-AHP Technique Using the Cloud
Swain, K. C., Singha, C., & Nayak, L. (2020) · ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information · doi:10.3390/ijgi9120720 · Cited by 273
Kanani-Sadat, Y., Arabsheibani, R., Karimipour, F., & Nasseri, M. (2019) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.02.034 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Khosravi, K., Pham, B. T., Chapi, K., Shirzadi, A., Shahabi, H., Revhaug, I., Prakash, I., & Tien Bui, D.
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-06
- Volume
- 627
- Pages
- 744-755
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2791328889
- Cited by
- 792
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 43.32
- 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 decision trees algorithms for flash flood susceptibility modeling at Haraz watershed, northern Iran. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.266
- The paper
- Khosravi, K., Pham, B. T., Chapi, K., Shirzadi, A., Shahabi, H., Revhaug, I., Prakash, I., & Tien Bui, D. (2018). A comparative assessment of decision trees algorithms for flash flood susceptibility modeling at Haraz watershed, northern Iran. Science of The Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.266
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.