用于 PM2.5 浓度预测的深度学习架构:综述

IF 14 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Shiyun Zhou , Wei Wang , Long Zhu , Qi Qiao , Yulin Kang
{"title":"用于 PM2.5 浓度预测的深度学习架构:综述","authors":"Shiyun Zhou ,&nbsp;Wei Wang ,&nbsp;Long Zhu ,&nbsp;Qi Qiao ,&nbsp;Yulin Kang","doi":"10.1016/j.ese.2024.100400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Accurately predicting the concentration of fine particulate matter (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) is crucial for evaluating air pollution levels and public exposure. Recent advancements have seen a significant rise in using deep learning (DL) models for forecasting PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations. Nonetheless, there is a lack of unified and standardized frameworks for assessing the performance of DL-based PM<sub>2.5</sub> prediction models. Here we extensively reviewed those DL-based hybrid models for forecasting PM<sub>2.5</sub> levels according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We examined the similarities and differences among various DL models in predicting PM<sub>2.5</sub> by comparing their complexity and effectiveness. We categorized PM<sub>2.5</sub> DL methodologies into seven types based on performance and application conditions, including four types of DL-based models and three types of hybrid learning models. Our research indicates that established deep learning architectures are commonly used and respected for their efficiency. However, many of these models often fall short in terms of innovation and interpretability. Conversely, models hybrid with traditional approaches, like deterministic and statistical models, exhibit high interpretability but compromise on accuracy and speed. Besides, hybrid DL models, representing the pinnacle of innovation among the studied models, encounter issues with interpretability. We introduce a novel three-dimensional evaluation framework, i.e., Dataset-Method-Experiment Standard (DMES) to unify and standardize the evaluation for PM<sub>2.5</sub> predictions using DL models. This review provides a framework for future evaluations of DL-based models, which could inspire researchers to standardize DL model usage in PM<sub>2.5</sub> prediction and improve the quality of related studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34434,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science and Ecotechnology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":14.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666498424000140/pdfft?md5=a6dc484349e9d508a299fe23038c317d&pid=1-s2.0-S2666498424000140-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deep-learning architecture for PM2.5 concentration prediction: A review\",\"authors\":\"Shiyun Zhou ,&nbsp;Wei Wang ,&nbsp;Long Zhu ,&nbsp;Qi Qiao ,&nbsp;Yulin Kang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ese.2024.100400\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Accurately predicting the concentration of fine particulate matter (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) is crucial for evaluating air pollution levels and public exposure. Recent advancements have seen a significant rise in using deep learning (DL) models for forecasting PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations. Nonetheless, there is a lack of unified and standardized frameworks for assessing the performance of DL-based PM<sub>2.5</sub> prediction models. Here we extensively reviewed those DL-based hybrid models for forecasting PM<sub>2.5</sub> levels according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We examined the similarities and differences among various DL models in predicting PM<sub>2.5</sub> by comparing their complexity and effectiveness. We categorized PM<sub>2.5</sub> DL methodologies into seven types based on performance and application conditions, including four types of DL-based models and three types of hybrid learning models. Our research indicates that established deep learning architectures are commonly used and respected for their efficiency. However, many of these models often fall short in terms of innovation and interpretability. Conversely, models hybrid with traditional approaches, like deterministic and statistical models, exhibit high interpretability but compromise on accuracy and speed. Besides, hybrid DL models, representing the pinnacle of innovation among the studied models, encounter issues with interpretability. We introduce a novel three-dimensional evaluation framework, i.e., Dataset-Method-Experiment Standard (DMES) to unify and standardize the evaluation for PM<sub>2.5</sub> predictions using DL models. This review provides a framework for future evaluations of DL-based models, which could inspire researchers to standardize DL model usage in PM<sub>2.5</sub> prediction and improve the quality of related studies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science and Ecotechnology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":14.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666498424000140/pdfft?md5=a6dc484349e9d508a299fe23038c317d&pid=1-s2.0-S2666498424000140-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science and Ecotechnology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666498424000140\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science and Ecotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666498424000140","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

准确预测细颗粒物(PM2.5)的浓度对于评估空气污染水平和公众暴露至关重要。最近,使用深度学习(DL)模型预测 PM2.5 浓度的情况显著增加。然而,在评估基于深度学习的 PM2.5 预测模型的性能方面,还缺乏统一的标准化框架。在此,我们根据《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》(PRISMA)指南,广泛综述了用于预测 PM2.5 浓度的基于深度学习的混合模型。我们通过比较各种DL模型的复杂性和有效性,考察了它们在预测PM2.5方面的异同。根据性能和应用条件,我们将 PM2.5 深度学习方法分为七种类型,其中包括四种基于深度学习的模型和三种混合学习模型。我们的研究表明,成熟的深度学习架构因其高效性而被普遍使用和推崇。然而,这些模型中的许多往往在创新性和可解释性方面存在不足。相反,与传统方法(如确定性模型和统计模型)混合的模型表现出较高的可解释性,但在准确性和速度方面却大打折扣。此外,在所研究的模型中,混合 DL 模型代表了创新的顶峰,但也遇到了可解释性方面的问题。我们引入了一个新颖的三维评估框架,即数据集-方法-实验标准(DMES),以统一和规范使用 DL 模型预测 PM2.5 的评估。本综述为基于 DL 的模型的未来评估提供了一个框架,可激励研究人员规范 DL 模型在 PM2.5 预测中的使用,并提高相关研究的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deep-learning architecture for PM2.5 concentration prediction: A review

Accurately predicting the concentration of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is crucial for evaluating air pollution levels and public exposure. Recent advancements have seen a significant rise in using deep learning (DL) models for forecasting PM2.5 concentrations. Nonetheless, there is a lack of unified and standardized frameworks for assessing the performance of DL-based PM2.5 prediction models. Here we extensively reviewed those DL-based hybrid models for forecasting PM2.5 levels according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We examined the similarities and differences among various DL models in predicting PM2.5 by comparing their complexity and effectiveness. We categorized PM2.5 DL methodologies into seven types based on performance and application conditions, including four types of DL-based models and three types of hybrid learning models. Our research indicates that established deep learning architectures are commonly used and respected for their efficiency. However, many of these models often fall short in terms of innovation and interpretability. Conversely, models hybrid with traditional approaches, like deterministic and statistical models, exhibit high interpretability but compromise on accuracy and speed. Besides, hybrid DL models, representing the pinnacle of innovation among the studied models, encounter issues with interpretability. We introduce a novel three-dimensional evaluation framework, i.e., Dataset-Method-Experiment Standard (DMES) to unify and standardize the evaluation for PM2.5 predictions using DL models. This review provides a framework for future evaluations of DL-based models, which could inspire researchers to standardize DL model usage in PM2.5 prediction and improve the quality of related studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.40
自引率
6.30%
发文量
11
审稿时长
18 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Ecotechnology (ESE) is an international, open-access journal publishing original research in environmental science, engineering, ecotechnology, and related fields. Authors publishing in ESE can immediately, permanently, and freely share their work. They have license options and retain copyright. Published by Elsevier, ESE is co-organized by the Chinese Society for Environmental Sciences, Harbin Institute of Technology, and the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, under the supervision of the China Association for Science and Technology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信