skip to main content
research-article

Calibrating Low-Cost Sensors by a Two-Phase Learning Approach for Urban Air Quality Measurement

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 March 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Urban air quality information, e.g., PM2.5 concentration, is of great importance to both the government and society. Recently, there is a growing interest in developing low-cost sensors, installed on moving vehicles, for fine-grained air quality measurement. However, low-cost mobile sensors typically suffer from low accuracy and thus need careful calibration to preserve a high measurement quality. In this paper, we propose a two-phase data calibration method consisting of a linear part and a nonlinear part. We use MLS (multiple least square) to train the linear part, and use RF (random forest) to train the nonlinear part. We propose an automatic feature selection algorithm based on AIC (Akaike information criterion) for the linear model, which helps avoid overfitting due to the inclusion of inappropriate features. We evaluate our method extensively. Results show that our method outperforms existing approaches, achieving an overall accuracy improvement of 16.4% in terms of PM2.5 levels compared with state-of-the-art approach.

References

  1. C.M. Bishop. 2007. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. H. Bozdogan. 1987. Model selection and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika 52, 3 (1987), 345--370.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Central Moving Average. 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_average. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. L. Chen, Y.Y. Cai, Y.F. Ding, M.Q. Lv, C.L. Yuan, and G.C. Chen. 2016. Spatially Fine-grained Urban Air Quality Estimation Using Ensemble Semi-supervised Learning and Pruning. In Proc. of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. W.H. Chen, S.H. Hsu, and H.P. Shen. 2005. Application of SVM and ANN for intrusion detection. Computers 8 Operations Research 32, 10 (2005), 2617--2634. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Y. Cheng, X.C. Li, Z.J. Li, S.X. Jiang, Y.L. Li, J. Jia, and X.F. Jiang. 2014. AirCloud: A Cloud-based Air-quality Monitoring System for Everyone. In Proc. of the 12th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. W. Dong, G.Y. Guan, Y. Chen, K. Guo, and Y. Gao. 2015. Mosaic: Towards City Scale Sensing with Mobile Sensor Networks. In Proc. of the 21st IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. X.W. Fang and I. Bate. 2017. Using Multi-parameters for Calibration of Low-cost Sensors in Urban Environment. In Proc. of the International Conference on Embedded Wireless Systems and Networks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. C. Frost and Thompson S.G. 2000. Correcting for regression dilution bias: comparison of methods for a single predictor variable. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 163, 2 (2000), 173--189.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. K.B. Fu, W. Ren, and W. Dong. 2017. Multihop Calibration for Mobile Sensing: k-hop Calibratability and Reference Sensor Deployment. In Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Y. Gao, W. Dong, K. Guo, X. Liu, Y. Chen, X.J. Liu, J.J. Bu, and C. Chen. 2016. Mosaic: A Low-Cost Mobile Sensing System for Urban Air Quality Monitoring. In Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Machine Learning in Python tools. 2017. Scikit-learn. http://scikit-learn.org. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. The Mathworks Inc. 2014. Neural Network Toolbox Sample Data Sets for Shallow Networks. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 2017. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/uteh20/current. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. B. Maag, O. Saukh, D. Hasenfratz, and L. Thiele. 2016. Pre-Deployment Testing, Augmentation and Calibration of Cross-Sensitive Sensors. In Proc. of the International Conference on Embedded Wireless Systems and Networks. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. B. Maag, Z.M. Zhou, O. Saukh, and L. Thiele. 2017. SCAN: Multi-Hop Calibration for Mobile Sensor Arrays. Proc. of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 2 (2017), Article 19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Martin, J. Santos, H. Vasquez, and J. Agapito. 1999. Study of the interferences of NO2 and CO in solid state commercial sensors. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 58, 1 (1999), 469--473.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. M. Mead, O. Popoola, G. Stewart, P. Landshoff, M. Calleja, M. Hayes, J. Baldovi, M. McLeod, T. Hodgson, and Dicks J. 2013. The use of electrochemical sensors for monitoring urban air quality in low-cost, highdensity networks. Atmospheric Environment 70 (2013), 186--203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. M. I. Mead, O. A. M. Popoola, G. B. Stewart, P. Landshoff, M. Calleja, M. Hayes, J. J. Baldovi, M. W. Mcleod, T. F. Hodgson, and J. Dicks. 2013. The use of electrochemical sensors for monitoring urban air quality in low-cost, high-density networks. Atmospheric Environment 70, 2 (2013), 186--203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Dylos Air Quality Monitor. 2017. Dylos DC1700. http://www.dylosproducts.com/dc1700.html. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. R. Piedrahita, Y. Xiang, N. Masson, J. Ortega, A. Collier, Y. Jiang, K. Li, R. Dick, Q. Lv, and M. Hannigan. 2014. The next generation of low-cost personal air quality sensors for quantitative exposure monitoring. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 7, 10 (2014), 3325--3336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. PM2.5 Level. 2017. http://www.dwz.cn/cnnRO. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. D. Posada and T.R. Buckley. 2004. Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of akaike information criterion and bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Systematic Biology 53, 5 (2004), 793--808.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. O. Saukh, D. Hasenfratz, and L. Thiele. 2015. Reducing Multi-hop Calibration Errors in Large-scale Mobile Sensor Networks. In Proc. of the 14th International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. SDS011 Particle Sensor. 2017. NOVA SDS011. http://www.inovafitness.com/a/minyongchanpin/chuanganqilei/2015/0522/32.html. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. J. Shang, Y. Zheng, and W. Tong. 2014. Inferring gas consumption and pollution emission of vehicles throughout a city. In Proc. of the 20th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. L. Spinelle, M. Gerboles, M.G. Villani, M. Aleixandre, and F. Bonavitacola. 2015. Field calibration of a cluster of low-cost available sensors for air quality monitoring. part a: Ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 215 (2015), 249--257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Y. Xiang, L.S. Bai, R. Piedrahita, R.P. Dick, Q. Lv, M. Hannigan, and L. Shang. 2012. Collaborative Calibration and Sensor Placement for Mobile Sensor Networks. In Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Y. Zheng, F. Liu, and H.P. Hsieh. 2013. U-Air: when urban air quality inference meets big data. In Proc. of the 19th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Calibrating Low-Cost Sensors by a Two-Phase Learning Approach for Urban Air Quality Measurement

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
        Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies  Volume 2, Issue 1
        March 2018
        1370 pages
        EISSN:2474-9567
        DOI:10.1145/3200905
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 26 March 2018
        • Accepted: 1 January 2018
        • Revised: 1 November 2017
        • Received: 1 August 2017
        Published in imwut Volume 2, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader