Detecting PM2.5’s Correlations between Neighboring Cities Using a Time-Lagged Cross-Correlation Coefficient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In order to investigate the time-dependent cross-correlations of fine particulate (PM2.5) series among neighboring cities in Northern China, in this paper, we propose a new cross-correlation coefficient, the time-lagged q-L dependent height crosscorrelation coefficient (denoted by p q ( τ , L )), which incorporates the time-lag factor and the fluctuation amplitude information into the analogous height cross-correlation analysis coefficient. Numerical tests are performed to illustrate that the newly proposed coefficient ρ q ( τ , L ) can be used to detect cross-correlations between two series with time lags and to identify different range of fluctuations at which two series possess cross-correlations. Applying the new coefficient to analyze the time-dependent cross-correlations of PM2.5 series between Beijing and the three neighboring cities of Tianjin, Zhangjiakou, and Baoding, we find that time lags between the PM2.5 series with larger fluctuations are longer than those between PM2.5 series withsmaller fluctuations. Our analysis also shows that cross-correlations between the PM2.5 series of two neighboring cities are significant and the time lags between two PM2.5 series of neighboring cities are significantly non-zero. These findings providenew scientific support on the view that air pollution in neighboring cities can affect one another not simultaneously but with a time lag.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".