4.7 Article

Interval estimation of urban ozone level and selection of influential factors by employing automatic relevance determination model

Journal

CHEMOSPHERE
Volume 62, Issue 10, Pages 1600-1611

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.06.047

Keywords

maximum ozone concentration; multilayer perception; ozone episode; automatic relevance determination model

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this work, we focus on simulating the ground-level ozone (03) time series and its daily maximum concentration in Hong Kong urban air by employing the multilayer perceptron (MLP) model combined with the automatic relevance determination (ARD) method (for simplicity, we name it as MLP-ARD model). Two air quality monitoring sites in Hong Kong, i.e., Tsuen Wan and Tung Chung, are selected for the numerical experiments. The MLP-ARD model based on Bayesian evidence framework can provide reliable interval estimation of real observation as well as offering efficient strategy to avoid over-fitting. The performance comparisons between MLP-ARD model and traditional artificial neural network (ANN) model based on maximum likelihood indicate that MLP-ARD model is more powerful to capture the wild fluctuation of O-3 level especially during O-3 episodes than the traditional model. Furthermore, it can assess and rank the input variables for the prediction according to their relative importance to the output variable, i.e., the daily maximum O-3 concentration in this study. The preliminary experimental results indicate that nitric oxide (NO) and solar radiation are the most important input variables for O-3 prediction at both selected sites. In addition, the previous daily maximum O-3 level is also important for Tung Chung site. In this regard, MLP-ARD model is a feasible tool to interpret the real physical and chemical process of urban O-3 variation. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available