The Influence of Data Length on the Performance of Artificial Intelligence Models in Predicting Air Pollution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air pollution is one of humanity's most critical environmental issues and is considered contentious in several countries worldwide. As a result, accurate prediction is critical in human health management and government decision-making for environmental management. In this study, three artificial intelligence (AI) approaches, namely group method of data handling neural network (GMDHNN), extreme learning machine (ELM), and gradient boosting regression (GBR) tree, are used to predict the hourly concentration of PM2.5 over a Dorset station located in Canada. The investigation has been performed to quantify the effect of data length on the AI modeling performance. Accordingly, nine different ratios (50/50, 55/45, 60/40, 65/35, 70/30, 75/25, 80/20, 85/15, and 90/10) are employed to split the data into training and testing datasets for assessing the performance of applied models. The results showed that the data division significantly impacted the model's capacity, and the 60/40 ratio was found more suitable for developing predictive models. Furthermore, the results showed that the ELM model provides more precise predictions of PM2.5 concentrations than the other models. Also, a vital feature of the ELM model is its ability to adapt to the potential changes in training and testing data ratio. To summarize, the results reported in this study demonstrated an efficient method for selecting the optimal dataset ratios and the best AI model to predict properly which would be helpful in the design of an accurate model for solving different environmental issues.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".