Environmental sensor placement with convolutional Gaussian neural processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Environmental sensors are crucial for monitoring weather conditions and the impacts of climate change. However, it is challenging to place sensors in a way that maximises the informativeness of their measurements, particularly in remote regions like Antarctica. Probabilistic machine learning models can suggest informative sensor placements by finding sites that maximally reduce prediction uncertainty. Gaussian process (GP) models are widely used for this purpose, but they struggle with capturing complex non-stationary behaviour and scaling to large datasets. This paper proposes using a convolutional Gaussian neural process (ConvGNP) to address these issues. A ConvGNP uses neural networks to parameterise a joint Gaussian distribution at arbitrary target locations, enabling flexibility and scalability. Using simulated surface air temperature anomaly over Antarctica as training data, the ConvGNP learns spatial and seasonal non-stationarities, outperforming a non-stationary GP baseline. In a simulated sensor placement experiment, the ConvGNP better predicts the performance boost obtained from new observations than GP baselines, leading to more informative sensor placements. We contrast our approach with physics-based sensor placement methods and propose future steps towards an operational sensor placement recommendation system. Our work could help to realise environmental digital twins that actively direct measurement sampling to improve the digital representation of reality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".