A comparative analysis for deep learning model (hyDL-CO v1.0) and Kalman Filter to predict CO in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The applications of novel deep learning techniques in atmospheric science are rising quickly. Here we build a hybrid deep learning (DL) model (hyDL-CO), based on convolutional neural networks (CNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) neural networks to provide a comparative analysis between DL and Kalman Filter (KF) to predict carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations in China in 2015–2020. We find the performance of DL model is better than KF in the training period (2015–2018): the mean bias and correlation coefficients are 9.6 ppb and 0.98 over E. China, and −12.5 ppb and 0.96 over grids with independent observations. By contrast, the assimilated CO concentrations by KF exhibit comparable correlation coefficients but larger negative biases. Furthermore, DL model demonstrates good temporal extensibility: the mean bias and correlation coefficients are 95.7 ppb and 0.93 over E. China, and 81.0 ppb and 0.91 over grids with independent observations in 2019–2020, while CO observations are not fed into the DL model as an input variable. Despite these advantages, our analysis indicates a noticeable underestimation of CO concentrations at extreme pollution events in the DL model. This work demonstrates the advantages and disadvantages of DL models to predict atmospheric compositions in respective to traditional data assimilation, which is helpful for better applications of this novel technique in future studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".