Hybrid regression–classification framework for minimizing misclassification in green tea quality assessment using electronic nose


Abstract

Accurate prediction in tea quality assessment is vital for ensuring consistency between production standards and market expectations. Even minor misclassifications can lead to economic losses, over- or under-grading of tea products, and reduced consumer confidence. Traditional classification models often struggle to capture subtle differences in aroma profiles obtained from electronic nose (e-nose) sensors, resulting in inconsistent prediction accuracy across datasets. This study proposes a hybrid regression–classification framework to minimize misclassification and improve balanced accuracy in green tea quality prediction. The approach integrates ensemble tree-based classifiers with regression-based classification through probability-guided decision integration. The e-nose system captures volatile compound signals, which are processed by a regression model to produce continuous prediction scores. These scores are then converted into categorical outputs via threshold-based post-processing. Simultaneously, probabilistic outputs from the classification model are analyzed to determine a reference probability threshold p_Ref that guides the integration of regression-based predictions. Experiments conducted on two datasets (2024 and 2025) demonstrate that the proposed method effectively reduces incorrect predictions while improving model stability. The hybrid approach achieved balanced accuracy values of 99% on the 2024 dataset and 95% on the 2025 dataset, outperforming individual classification or regression models. The findings confirm that combining regression-based and probabilistic classification improves prediction reliability for e-nose-based tea quality assessment. The proposed hybrid framework provides a robust and interpretable solution for developing intelligent decision-support systems in the tea industry and other sensor-based quality monitoring applications.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].