MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784031884 · doi:10.5194/amt-11-291-2018

A machine learning calibration model using random forests to improve sensor performance for lower-cost air quality monitoring

2018· article· en· W2784031884 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Naomi Zimmerman, Albert A. Presto, Sriniwasa P. N. Kumar, Jason Gu, Aliaksei Hauryliuk, Ellis S. Robinson, Allen L. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric measurement techniques · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHeinz EndowmentsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsCalibrationRandom forestEnvironmental scienceApproximation errorLinear regressionStatisticsUnivariateAir quality indexComputer scienceRemote sensingMachine learningMathematicsMeteorologyMultivariate statisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Low-cost sensing strategies hold the promise of denser air quality monitoring networks, which could significantly improve our understanding of personal air pollution exposure. Additionally, low-cost air quality sensors could be deployed to areas where limited monitoring exists. However, low-cost sensors are frequently sensitive to environmental conditions and pollutant cross-sensitivities, which have historically been poorly addressed by laboratory calibrations, limiting their utility for monitoring. In this study, we investigated different calibration models for the Real-time Affordable Multi-Pollutant (RAMP) sensor package, which measures CO, NO2, O3, and CO2. We explored three methods: (1) laboratory univariate linear regression, (2) empirical multiple linear regression, and (3) machine-learning-based calibration models using random forests (RF). Calibration models were developed for 16–19 RAMP monitors (varied by pollutant) using training and testing windows spanning August 2016 through February 2017 in Pittsburgh, PA, US. The random forest models matched (CO) or significantly outperformed (NO2, CO2, O3) the other calibration models, and their accuracy and precision were robust over time for testing windows of up to 16 weeks. Following calibration, average mean absolute error on the testing data set from the random forest models was 38 ppb for CO (14 % relative error), 10 ppm for CO2 (2 % relative error), 3.5 ppb for NO2 (29 % relative error), and 3.4 ppb for O3 (15 % relative error), and Pearson r versus the reference monitors exceeded 0.8 for most units. Model performance is explored in detail, including a quantification of model variable importance, accuracy across different concentration ranges, and performance in a range of monitoring contexts including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the US EPA Air Sensors Guidebook recommendations of minimum data quality for personal exposure measurement. A key strength of the RF approach is that it accounts for pollutant cross-sensitivities. This highlights the importance of developing multipollutant sensor packages (as opposed to single-pollutant monitors); we determined this is especially critical for NO2 and CO2. The evaluation reveals that only the RF-calibrated sensors meet the US EPA Air Sensors Guidebook recommendations of minimum data quality for personal exposure measurement. We also demonstrate that the RF-model-calibrated sensors could detect differences in NO2 concentrations between a near-road site and a suburban site less than 1.5 km away. From this study, we conclude that combining RF models with carefully controlled state-of-the-art multipollutant sensor packages as in the RAMP monitors appears to be a very promising approach to address the poor performance that has plagued low-cost air quality sensors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations559
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric measurement techniquesSame topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207