Do machine learning methods improve prediction of ambient air pollutants with high spatial contrast? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of machine learning for air pollution modelling is rapidly increasing. We conducted a systematic review of studies comparing statistical and machine learning models predicting the spatiotemporal variation of ambient nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ultrafine particles (UFPs) and black carbon (BC) to determine whether and in which scenarios machine learning generates more accurate predictions. Web of Science and Scopus were searched up to June 13, 2024. All records were screened by two independent reviewers. Differences in the coefficient of determination (R2) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) between best statistical and machine learning methods were compared across categories of methodological elements. A total of 38 studies with 46 model comparisons (30 for NO2, 8 for UFPs and 8 for BC) were included. Linear non-regularized methods and Random Forest were most frequently used. Machine learning outperformed statistical models in 34 comparisons. Mean differences (95% confidence intervals) in R2 and RMSE between best machine learning and statistical models were 0.12 (0.08, 0.17) and 20% (11%, 29%) respectively. Tree-based methods performed best in 12 of 17 multi-model comparisons. Nonlinear or regularization regression methods were used in only 12 comparisons and provided similar performance to machine learning methods. This systematic review suggests that machine learning methods, especially tree-based methods, may be superior to linear non-regularized methods for predicting ambient concentrations of NO2, UFPs and BC. Additional comparison studies using nonlinear, regularized and a wider array of machine learning methods are needed to confirm their relative performance. Future air pollution studies would also benefit from more explicit and standardized reporting of methodologies and results.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".