Evaluation of River Water Quality Index Using Remote Sensing and Artificial Intelligence Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To restrict the entry of polluting components into water bodies, particularly rivers, it is critical to undertake timely monitoring and make rapid choices. Traditional techniques of assessing water quality are typically costly and time-consuming. With the advent of remote sensing technologies and the availability of high-resolution satellite images in recent years, a significant opportunity for water quality monitoring has arisen. In this study, the water quality index (WQI) for the Hudson River has been estimated using Landsat 8 OLI-TIRS images and four Artificial Intelligence (AI) models, such as M5 Model Tree (MT), Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline (MARS), Gene Expression Programming (GEP), and Evolutionary Polynomial Regression (EPR). In this way, 13 water quality parameters (WQPs) (i.e., Turbidity, Sulfate, Sodium, Potassium, Hardness, Fluoride, Dissolved Oxygen, Chloride, Arsenic, Alkalinity, pH, Nitrate, and Magnesium) were measured between 14 March 2021 and 16 June 2021 at a site near Poughkeepsie, New York. First, Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) models were created between these WQPs parameters and the spectral indices of Landsat 8 OLI-TIRS images, and then, the most correlated spectral indices were selected as input variables of AI models. With reference to the measured values of WQPs, the WQI was determined according to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guidelines. After that, AI models were developed through the training and testing stages, and then estimated values of WQI were compared to the actual values. The results of the AI models’ performance showed that the MARS model had the best performance among the other AI models for monitoring WQI. The results demonstrated the high effectiveness and power of estimating WQI utilizing a combination of satellite images and artificial intelligence models.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".