2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.114
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Long short-term memory neural network for air pollutant concentration predictions: Method development and evaluation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

5
214
0
12

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 486 publications
(265 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
5
214
0
12
Order By: Relevance
“…Xiang et al have proposed a RNN based model for predicting air pollutant concentrations along with an evaluation strategy [27]. A deep air system was developed by Vikram et al for forecasting pollution in Beijing [14].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Xiang et al have proposed a RNN based model for predicting air pollutant concentrations along with an evaluation strategy [27]. A deep air system was developed by Vikram et al for forecasting pollution in Beijing [14].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…e network architecture of the LSTM model used in the paper is shown in Figure 5, which is the same as the LSTMextended network proposed in [13]. e main input is the air pollutant data, and the auxiliary input is the time and meteorology data.…”
Section: Feature Transformationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the above experiments, for simplicity, 9 was selected as the most appropriate in uential historical time lag for di erent future time lag. Advances in Meteorologyand SVC are widely used air quality forecast models, they were ne-tuned in this paper in order to make a fair comparison with MKSVC, and the LSTM in this paper has the same structure as the LSTM extended model proposed in [13]. Figure 7 shows the experimental ow.…”
Section: Feature Transformationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Despite achieving a relatively high prediction accuracy, the average mean absolute error of their predictions was around 9 μg/m 3 , compared to the average concentration of 83 μg/m 3 . Li et al [37] utilized long short-term memory (LSTM) along with several machine learning techniques. Their results, however, showed a significant error for more than a four-hour prediction.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%