2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.139
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Near Real-time Autonomous Quality Control for Streaming Environmental Sensor Data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hereby, QA can be considered a proactive or preventive process to avoid problems and QC as a process to identify and flag suspect data after they have been generated. (Campbell et al, 2013;Scully-Allison et al, 2018) The QC procedures can be applied at various stages of data flow from sensors to the end user and can be carried out by numerous methods. Observations can be flagged by several methods and various symbols and names can be used to indicate the quality control level.…”
Section: Quality Flaggingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Hereby, QA can be considered a proactive or preventive process to avoid problems and QC as a process to identify and flag suspect data after they have been generated. (Campbell et al, 2013;Scully-Allison et al, 2018) The QC procedures can be applied at various stages of data flow from sensors to the end user and can be carried out by numerous methods. Observations can be flagged by several methods and various symbols and names can be used to indicate the quality control level.…”
Section: Quality Flaggingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Campbell et al, 2013;Vejen et al, 2002). Hence, several QC methods for automatic tests have been reported (Vejen et al 2002;Scully-Allison et al 2018;Geuder et al, 2015;Lewis et al, 2018) In addition to the simple and traditional QC procedures, methods utilizing machine-learning have also been developed. These methods represent a datadriven approach to QC, wherein statistical models or classifiers are trained using empirical data collected from sensors.…”
Section: Quality Flaggingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Looking toward a future in which the management of environmental systems is driven by vast quantities of real-time data, it is no longer feasible for the QAQC process to be entirely manual. ,, A number of approaches have been proposed to detect environmental sensor data faults. These approaches largely fall into three categories, (1) heuristic rule-based tests, , (2) ML and purely statistical methods, ,, and (3) multisensor comparison. Some studies have applied a combination of these. These existing methods are often unsuitable for use on large-scale, low-resource sensor networks, however, as they are either expensive, labor-intensive to scale, or anticipate a minimum signal-to-noise ratio to which real-world sensors may not adhere to. In recent years, most QAQC approaches have been built around data that are reliable enough to be cleaned to begin with.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of them rely on visual screening of data, and therefore personal inspection, and on manual elimination of erroneous values based on empirical knowledge and investigator experiences. Several advanced tools such as GCE (Scully-Allison et al, 2018), CoTeDe (Castelao, 2016), AutoQC (IQuOD) and comprehensive user manuals such as QARTOD (Willis et al, 2016), WMO-AWS (Zahumensky, 2004) have been developed with precise rules to overcome this subjectivity.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%