Applying Deep Neural Networks and Ensemble Machine Learning Methods to Forecast Airborne Ambrosia Pollen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allergies to airborne pollen are a significant issue affecting millions of Americans. Consequently, accurately predicting the daily concentration of airborne pollen is of significant public benefit in providing timely alerts. This study presents a method for the robust estimation of the concentration of airborne Ambrosia pollen using a suite of machine learning approaches including deep learning and ensemble learners. Each of these machine learning approaches utilize data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) atmospheric weather and land surface reanalysis. The machine learning approaches used for developing a suite of empirical models are deep neural networks, extreme gradient boosting, random forests and Bayesian ridge regression methods for developing our predictive model. The training data included twenty-four years of daily pollen concentration measurements together with ECMWF weather and land surface reanalysis data from 1987 to 2011 is used to develop the machine learning predictive models. The last six years of the dataset from 2012 to 2017 is used to independently test the performance of the machine learning models. The correlation coefficients between the estimated and actual pollen abundance for the independent validation datasets for the deep neural networks, random forest, extreme gradient boosting and Bayesian ridge were 0.82, 0.81, 0.81 and 0.75 respectively, showing that machine learning can be used to effectively forecast the concentrations of airborne pollen.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".