The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Machine Learning: New Ideas and Tools in Environmental Science and Engineering
Abstract
The rapid increase in both the quantity and complexity of data that are being generated daily in the field of environmental science and engineering (ESE) demands accompanied advancement in data analytics. Advanced data analysis approaches, such as machine learning (ML), have become indispensable tools for revealing hidden patterns or deducing correlations for which conventional analytical methods face limitations or challenges. However, ML concepts and practices have not been widely utilized by researchers in ESE. This feature explores the potential of ML to revolutionize data analysis and modeling in the ESE field, and covers the essential knowledge needed for such applications. First, we use five examples to illustrate how ML addresses complex ESE problems. We then summarize four major types of applications of ML in ESE: making predictions; extracting feature importance; detecting anomalies; and discovering new materials or chemicals. Next, we introduce the essential knowledge required and current shortcomings in ML applications in ESE, with a focus on three important but often overlooked components when applying ML: correct model development, proper model interpretation, and sound applicability analysis. Finally, we discuss challenges and future opportunities in the application of ML tools in ESE to highlight the potential of ML in this field.
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731
A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions
Lundberg, S., & Lee, S.-I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.07874 · Cited by 23,707
A survey on Image Data Augmentation for Deep Learning
Shorten, C., & Khoshgoftaar, T. M. (2019) · Journal of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-019-0197-0 · Cited by 13,203
Arrieta, A. B., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., García, S., Gil-López, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10045 · Cited by 11,321
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423
Kuhn, M., & Johnson, K. (2013) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6849-3 · Cited by 6,788
Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme
Matthews, B. W. (1975) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure · doi:10.1016/0005-2795(75)90109-9 · Cited by 5,399
Bias in error estimation when using cross-validation for model selection
Varma, S., & Simon, R. (2006) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-7-91 · Cited by 2,485
A Deep Learning Approach to Antibiotic Discovery
Stokes, J. M., Yang, K., Swanson, K., Jin, W., Cubillos-Ruiz, A., Donghia, N. M., MacNair, C. R., French, S., Carfrae, L. A., Bloom-Ackermann, Z., et al. (2020) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.01.021 · Cited by 2,463
Machine-learning-assisted materials discovery using failed experiments
Raccuglia, P., Elbert, K. C., Adler, P. D. F., Falk, C., Wenny, M. B., Mollo, A., Zeller, M., Friedler, S. A., Schrier, J., & Norquist, A. J. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature17439 · Cited by 1,727
Self-citationStatistics versus machine learning
Bzdok, D., Altman, N., & Krzywinski, M. (2018) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.4642 · Cited by 1,508
Leakage in data mining: Formulation, detection, and avoidance
Kaufman, S., Rosset, S., Perlich, C., & Stitelman, O. (2012) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/2382577.2382579 · Cited by 791
On Outliers and Activity CliffsWhy QSAR Often Disappoints
Maggiora, G. M. (2006) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci060117s · Cited by 728
CERAPP: Collaborative Estrogen Receptor Activity Prediction Project
Mansouri, K., Abdelaziz, A., Rybacka, A., Roncaglioni, A., Tropsha, A., Varnek, A., Zakharov, A., Worth, A., Richard, A. M., Grulke, C. M., et al. (2016) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.1510267 · Cited by 375
Koza, J. R., Bennett, F. H., Andre, D., & Keane, M. A. (1996) · Artificial Intelligence in Design ’96 · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-0279-4_9 · Cited by 361
McCullagh, P. (2002) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1035844977 · Cited by 248
A note on using the F-measure for evaluating record linkage algorithms
Hand, D., & Christen, P. (2018) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/s11222-017-9746-6 · Cited by 247
Cited by
Emerging contaminants: A One Health perspective
Wang, F., Xiang, L., Sze-Yin Leung, K., Elsner, M., Zhang, Y., Guo, Y., Pan, B., Sun, H., An, T., Ying, G., et al. (2024) · The Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2024.100612 · Cited by 639
Self-citationAI‐driven adaptive learning for sustainable educational transformation
Strielkowski, W., Grebennikova, V., Lisovskiy, A., Rakhimova, G., & Vasileva, T. (2025) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.3221 · Cited by 581
Multiple Roles of Dissolved Organic Matter in Advanced Oxidation Processes
Yang, X., Rosario-Ortiz, F. L., Lei, Y., Pan, Y., Lei, X., & Westerhoff, P. (2022) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c01017 · Cited by 459
Strielkowski, W., Vlasov, A., Selivanov, K., Muraviev, K., & Shakhnov, V. (2023) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en16104025 · Cited by 237
Mai, X., Tang, J., Tang, J., Zhu, X., Yang, Z., Liu, X., Zhuang, X., Feng, G., & Tang, L. (2025) · Journal of Environmental Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jes.2024.01.045 · Cited by 221
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhong, S., Zhang, K., Bagheri, M., Burken, J. G., Gu, A., Li, B., Ma, X., Marrone, B. L., Ren, Z. J., Schrier, J., Shi, W., Tan, H., Wang, T., Wang, X., Wong, B. M., Xiao, X., Yu, X., Zhu, J.-J., & Zhang, H.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2021-08-17
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 12741-12754
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W3193638860
- Cited by
- 945
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 43.97
- 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
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.
