Long-term evaluation of machine learning based methods for air emission monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning (ML) techniques have been researched and used in various environmental monitoring applications. Few studies have reported the long-term evaluation of such applications. Discussions regarding the risks and regulatory frameworks of ML applications in environmental monitoring have been rare. We monitored the performance of six ML-based predictive models for 28 months. The six ML models used to predict NO x emissions were developed using six different algorithms. The model developed with a moderate complexity algorithm, adaptive boosting, had the best performance in long-term monitoring, with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.48 kg/hr in the 28-month monitoring period, and passed two of the three relative accuracy test audits. High complexity models based on gradient boosting and neural network algorithms had the best training performance, with a minimum RMSE of 0.23 kg/hr and 0.26 kg/hr, but also had the worst RMSE scores, of 0.51 kg/hr and 0.57 kg/hr, during the monitoring period. In addition, all six models failed all three relative accuracy test audits. The following problems were observed: 1) Complex ML models tended to have overfitting problems, thus indicating the importance of the trade-off between model accuracy and complexity. 2) Model input sensor drift or out of high-frequency ranges from the training data resulted in inaccurate predictions or an accuracy lower than the minimum allowed by regulators. 3) Existing regulatory frameworks must be modernized to keep pace with current machine learning practices. Some statistical tests are unsuitable for applications developed by using ML methods.
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 | 0.025 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".