Real-time air quality prediction using traffic videos and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Non-linear machine learning models predict air quality better than linear models. • Cameras can be used for extracting traffic information through image recognition. • Traffic data extraction and air quality prediction should be tailored to the area. • Traffic cameras are a low-cost tool for predicting real-time air quality. Machine learning techniques are yielding better results than traditional statistical techniques to estimate traffic-related air pollutant (TRAP) concentrations. However, required data inputs, particularly complex traffic data, are costly and rarely collected in real-time. This study leverages real-time object detection techniques to accurately predict TRAP concentrations by extracting traffic variables solely from videos. Fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) and ozone (O 3 ) concentrations are recorded by low-cost sensors, with traffic data extracted using object detection and tracking algorithms. Extreme Gradient Boosting, random forest, and multilinear regression models are employed to predict concentrations across different predictor combinations. Our optimal models accurately predict PM 2.5 , NO 2, and O 3 concentrations with R 2 values of 0.94, 0.95, and 0.92, respectively. This study demonstrates a cost-effective approach with high accuracies in predicting real-time TRAP using a low-cost and low-maintenance tool: a video camera. Cities could similarly track TRAP using traffic camera infrastructure without additional sensor deployment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".