Real-time Calibration Model for Low-cost Sensor in Fine-grained Time series

Hyungjin Kim; Seokho Ahn; Sungbok Shin; Young-Duk Seo

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 24 references

Real-time Calibration Model for Low-cost Sensor in Fine-grained Time series

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that logarithmic-binned attention lets a Transformer calibrate low-cost sensors in real time on constrained hardware, beating both deep-learning and linear baselines.

desk verdict Plausible low-resource sensor calibration model, but a single fixed split and test-informed hyperparameter choice don't support the 'consistent superiority' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20170 v1 pith:6XUT36X3 submitted 2024-12-28 cs.LG cs.AIeess.SP

Seokho Ahn , Hyungjin Kim , Sungbok Shin , Young-Duk Seo This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AIeess.SP

keywords sensorcalibrationlow-costsensorstimeseriesTransformerlogarithmicbinningattentioncomplexityIoTmicrocontroller

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Low-cost sensors in IoT devices are frequently inaccurate and need calibration, but the deep-learning models that calibrate best are usually too slow and memory-hungry for the small processors they run on. The paper identifies three requirements for a practical calibration model: it must handle fine-grained, minute-level time series, produce consistent real-time outputs, and fit within tight hardware budgets. To meet all three at once, the authors propose TESLA, a Transformer whose attention cost is reduced by logarithmic binning—grouping older tokens in log-scale buckets while keeping recent readings intact—and whose output stage is a lightweight linear layer. On a real air-quality dataset with low-cost and reference sensors in three cities, they report that TESLA achieves the best average accuracy among deep-learning and linear baselines while keeping FLOPS, memory, and microcontroller inference time close to the linear models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is logarithmic binning, a set of learnable linear maps that partition the $N$ input embeddings into $z = \lceil \log_2 N \rceil$ tokens, with bin boundaries placed so the most recent tokens are preserved individually and older tokens are combined in reverse temporal order on a logarithmic scale. This shrinks the attention matrix from $N \times N$ to about $z \times z$, cutting attention to $O(\log^2 N)$ and keeping recent dynamics explicit. Two supporting modifications carry much of the accuracy gain in the ablation: multi-view embedding, which adds a whole-sequence vector to each local token embedding, and feature-wise aggregation, a single linear layer that replaces the heavier token-wise feed-forward network.

What would settle it

Train TESLA and the baselines on the same data but rotate the held-out test sensor through every sensor in each city (leave-one-sensor-out cross-validation); if TESLA's average improvement over DLinear and iTransformer disappears or reverses, the reported superiority is specific to the single alphabetically-last test sensor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a Transformer can be made practical for single-sensor calibration without giving up accuracy, by compressing the input sequence to about $\lceil \log_2 N \rceil$ tokens via learnable logarithmic binning, combining local and global views in the embedding, and replacing the token-wise feed-forward network with a single feature-wise linear layer. This reduces the self-attention complexity from $O(N^2)$ to $O(\log^2 N)$ with roughly $N$ additional parameters for the binning functions, and the authors argue it preserves recent sensor dynamics better than uniform patching. Across the SensEURCity particulate-matter data (PM10, PM2.5, PM1 in Antwerp, Oslo, and Zagreb), the paper reports TESLA reaches the lowest average RMSE and MAE, with particularly large gains in high-concentration pollution episodes, while its efficiency metrics stay close to linear baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy claims rest on a single held-out sensor per city used as the test set, so the results depend on that specific sensor being representative of the others.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Deployment of Transformer-based calibration moves from servers to microcontrollers: the paper reports TESLA running on an Arduino Nano 33 BLE Sense with inference times and flatbuffer sizes comparable to linear models.
Because attention cost scales as $O(\log^2 N)$ rather than $O(N^2)$, calibration stays affordable as the observation window grows to hour- or day-length fine-grained sequences.
Calibration can be performed from a single low-cost sensor plus one reference signal, without needing multivariate or multi-sensor inputs.
The reported results imply that the accuracy-versus-efficiency tradeoff in sensor calibration is not inherent: deep-learning accuracy and linear-model speed can be combined.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the paper's single fixed split leaves cross-sensor generalization untested; a reasonable next step is leave-one-sensor-out evaluation to see whether the reported gains hold for every sensor, not just the alphabetically last one.
Editorial inference: logarithmic binning is a generic token-compression idea; it could be dropped into other sequence architectures (state-space models, RNNs) for long-range tasks beyond sensor calibration, though the authors do not explore this.
Editorial inference: the 'mean trap' observation suggests calibration benchmarks should report distribution-conditioned errors (e.g., high-pollution episodes) because RMSE and MAE can hide large improvements in rare but critical regimes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the TESLA architecture is a reasonable engineering contribution for low-cost sensor calibration on constrained hardware, but the evaluation as reported is too weak to back the strong claims of consistent real-time superiority. The paper is worth a serious referee, not because the current results are convincing, but because the design is sensible and the flaws are fixable.

What's new: logarithmic binning to shrink attention tokens from N to log N, combined with iTransformer-style global embedding and a feature-wise linear aggregator instead of a feed-forward network. The ablation in Table 2 supports each design decision, and the deployment on an Arduino Nano with memory/FLOPS measurements is concrete evidence that the efficiency goal is real. That part is credible.

Where it falls down: the central accuracy claim rests on one train/validation/test split per region and feature, with a single held-out test sensor. There are no repeated runs, cross-validation, or significance tests, so the modest gains (e.g., PM2.5 RMSE 8.57 vs. 8.91 for iTransformer) have no error bars. Worse, N=360 is selected after inspecting the test-curve behavior of RMSE/FLOPS, which means the headline configuration is tuned on the test set. The case study itself shows TESLA losing to iTransformer in the mid-distribution window (-1.21%), which contradicts the 'consistent' claim. These issues are addressable with a few repeated splits or reporting per-sensor variance, but as written the strong claims are not supported.

Two smaller technical problems: Eq. (7) does not type-check as written (LayerNorm output is z×d, then Wagg1 d×1 gives z×1, its transpose times Wagg2 d×1 is not a scalar unless z=d); and the α_j formula in Eq. (3) with +3 does not produce the (1,6,10,12,13) values in Figure 2. These are likely typos, but they reinforce the need for released code. Also, logarithmic binning is conceptually close to log-sparse attention, which is not cited.

Who this is for: researchers working on small-model calibration for IoT air quality monitoring. A serious referee should engage with it, but the authors need to either release code and add variance-aware evaluation or soften the claims. I would not cite the current version as evidence for the method's superiority.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TESLA, a Transformer-based model for real-time calibration of low-cost sensors, combining logarithmic-binned attention, multi-view embedding, and feature-wise linear aggregation. The authors identify three requirements for practical calibration (accuracy, latency, hardware constraints) and argue that TESLA balances them better than existing deep learning and linear baselines. Experiments on the SensEURCity dataset (three regions, three PM features) compare TESLA with Linear, NLinear, DLinear, Transformer, Informer, PatchTST, and iTransformer, reporting accuracy (RMSE, MAE), efficiency (FLOPs, memory, parameters), and microcontroller deployment metrics. The central claim is consistent superiority in accuracy, speed, and energy efficiency.

Significance. If the results hold, TESLA addresses a genuine gap: a calibration model that approaches deep-learning accuracy while remaining deployable on low-cost microcontrollers. The logarithmic binning idea is a reasonable way to cut attention complexity while preserving recent information, and the efficiency measurements on an Arduino-class device are a useful practical contribution. The paper reports a coherent set of experiments and an ablation study that isolates the contribution of each architectural choice. However, the strength of the central claim is currently not supported by the evaluation protocol, and several technical inconsistencies need correction. The study is a solid proof-of-concept that deserves further scrutiny and revision.

major comments (4)

[Section 5, Evaluation setup] The evaluation uses a single fixed split per region and feature (sensors sorted alphabetically, second-to-last as validation, last as test, all others for training). No repeated runs, cross-validation, or statistical significance tests are reported. The average gains over the best baseline in Table 1 are small (e.g., PM2.5 average RMSE 8.57 vs. iTransformer 8.91, about 3.8%), and for some cells TESLA is not the best (e.g., PM2.5 Oslo RMSE: iTransformer 7.88 vs. TESLA 7.90). Without variance estimates or paired tests, the claim of "consistent real-time calibration" is not statistically supported. Please provide multiple splits or repeated-seed runs and report error bars or paired significance tests.
[Section 6, Sequence length] The text states "For this reason, we set N = 360 as our optimal length for all models in our experiment" after discussing Figure 4, which plots RMSE and FLOPs versus sequence length. If N was chosen by inspecting test-set performance, the hyperparameter is fitted to the test set, which inflates the reported advantage. Please clarify explicitly whether the sequence length was selected using the validation sensor, and if not, rerun the selection on validation data and report results for the chosen N on the test sensor.
[Section 4.4, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) does not type-check dimensionally. Given attention output Y ∈ R^{z×d} and Wagg1 ∈ R^{d×1}, the expression (LayerNorm(Y)Wagg1)^T is 1×z, which cannot be multiplied by Wagg2 ∈ R^{d×1} unless z=d. The intended operation is presumably to aggregate the z token outputs into a scalar; please rewrite the formula with correct dimensions or clarify the aggregation step.
[Section 4.3, Eq. (3) and Figure 2] The boundary indices αj from Eq. (3) disagree with the illustrative example in Figure 2. For N=12, z=4, Eq. (3) gives α=(1,7,11,13,14), but Figure 2 states α=(1,6,10,12,13). Since these boundaries define the logarithmic binning, the discrepancy is central to the method's specification. Please correct the formula and ensure the figure matches.

minor comments (6)

[Table 1] The table formatting is corrupted in the manuscript: many numbers are concatenated (e.g., "3.623.625.22 1.43 3.421.832.51 1.14 1.83"), which makes the results difficult or impossible to verify. Please provide a properly aligned table.
[Figure 5] The caption refers to sensor "Oslo 643217" while the figure panel shows "Oslo_653257". Also, the numerical table for the mid-distribution case reports a negative gain (-1.21%) for TESLA, while the text claims an "average improvement of 3.81%"; please clarify how the average gain is computed and that the text is consistent with the per-distribution results.
[Section 3.1, Definition 1] The definition of granularity µX = min_{i≥N} (t_i - t_{i-1}) restricts the minimum to i ≥ N, which is arbitrary; the minimum interval should be taken over all consecutive timestamps in the sensor's series.
[Throughout] The paper uses "FLOPS" where the intended quantity is floating-point operations (FLOPs), not floating-point operations per second. Please correct the notation.
[Section 6, Case study] The case study compares TESLA with only DLinear and iTransformer, and the selected sensor may not be representative; given the single-split protocol, it is important to state how the case-study sensor was chosen.
[Appendix A.3] The paper motivates the choice of baselines but does not include an LSTM baseline, even though prior calibration work (e.g., Ahn et al. 2024) uses LSTM-based models; please add a sentence explaining this omission or add the baseline.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; test-informed N choice and the fixed sensor split are evaluation-protocol risks, not constructional circularity.

full rationale

TESLA's derivation chain is self-contained against the benchmark and does not reduce to its inputs. The training objective in Definition 2/Eq. (1) minimizes L(F_N(S_i|Theta), y_i), where footnote 2 defines y_i as the reference sensor reading Y(t_i); this target is external to the model, so calibration accuracy is not defined in terms of TESLA's own output. Logarithmic binning (Eqs. 3-6), multi-view embedding (Eq. 2), and feature-wise aggregation (Eq. 7) are architectural proposals evaluated on held-out sensors, not quantities fitted from the reported RMSE/MAE values. The only self-citation, Ahn et al. 2024, appears in related-work context and in the limitation statement 'we adopt standard settings used in calibration studies (Ahn et al. 2024; Narayana et al. 2024)'; it supplies experimental convention, not the load-bearing justification for TESLA's accuracy or efficiency, so it does not make the argument circular. The acknowledged limitations (Section 7 'Static experimental settings'; Appendix A.4 on dataset diversity and reference reliability) are scope caveats, not circular steps. Choosing N=360 after inspecting the Figure 4 RMSE/FLOPS curves is test-informed hyperparameter selection and, together with the single alphabetical split, is a statistical robustness concern; it is not an equation-level reduction of a prediction to a fitted parameter.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the availability of a trusted reference sensor, the sufficiency of univariate input, the representativeness of a single held-out sensor, and the design choice of log-scale emphasis. These are domain assumptions rather than derived facts. The only hand-tuned hyperparameter with a direct effect on the main comparison is the window size N=360, selected on test data.

free parameters (4)

window size N = 360
Selected as optimal based on Figure 4, which plots RMSE vs sequence length on test data; this is test-set tuning.
training epochs = 10
Set to 10 for all models; standard but not justified by analysis.
batch size = 32
Standard choice; not varied.
Adam learning rate = not reported
Required for reproduction but omitted from the paper.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Reference sensor readings (Alphasense OPC-N3) are accurate enough to serve as ground truth.
Section 3.2 defines the calibration objective against a reference sensor, and Appendix A.4 notes that the high-cost sensor may not provide sufficient precision.
domain assumption A single low-cost sensor's past readings contain sufficient information to calibrate it without external variables.
Section 3.2 defines calibration as a function of the sensor's own window Si, with no auxiliary inputs.
domain assumption Sensors within the same region are exchangeable enough that a model trained on other sensors generalizes to a held-out sensor.
Section 5 evaluation setup uses one held-out sensor for test without cross-validation, relying on this exchangeability.
ad hoc to paper Emphasizing recent tokens via logarithmic binning is beneficial for calibration.
Section 4.3 claims recent trends matter, but only compares against uniform binning, not against other temporal weighting schemes.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-time Calibration Model for Low-cost Sensor in Fine-grained Time series." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6XUT36X3

@misc{pith2026241220170,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-time Calibration Model for Low-cost Sensor in Fine-grained Time series},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6XUT36X3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20170}
}

read the original abstract

Precise measurements from sensors are crucial, but data is usually collected from low-cost, low-tech systems, which are often inaccurate. Thus, they require further calibrations. To that end, we first identify three requirements for effective calibration under practical low-tech sensor conditions. Based on the requirements, we develop a model called TESLA, Transformer for effective sensor calibration utilizing logarithmic-binned attention. TESLA uses a high-performance deep learning model, Transformers, to calibrate and capture non-linear components. At its core, it employs logarithmic binning to minimize attention complexity. TESLA achieves consistent real-time calibration, even with longer sequences and finer-grained time series in hardware-constrained systems. Experiments show that TESLA outperforms existing novel deep learning and newly crafted linear models in accuracy, calibration speed, and energy efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20170 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overview of TESLA, which consists of (a) multiview embedding, (b) logarithmic binned attention, and (c) feature-wise aggregation in data process order. 4 Sensor Calibration Model: TESLA This section describes our Transformer architecture for time series calibration for practical IoT systems, named TESLA (Transformer for effective sensor calibration utilizing logarithmic-binned attention). 4.1 Model Overview [PITH… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Illustrative example of logarithmic binning in case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Comparison of RMSE and FLOPS for average PM10 performance across three regions, evaluated at various time spans: 15 minutes, 1 hour, 6 hours, 12 hours, and 24 hours. Oslo_653257 (i) Low-distribution (ii) Mid-distribution (iii) High-distribution Concentration (μg/m³) (iii) (ii) (i) Raw input Reference DLinear iTransformer TESLA 200 150 0 50 100 200 150 50 100 0 (a) Actual calibration results concentration over time.… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Case study of actual PM10 calibration results with different calibration models for sensor ‘Oslo 643217’, comparing results across three windows with different distributions (low-, mid-, and high-distribution). Gain represents the average increase in performance in ter…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Evaluation of the Arduino Nano 33 BLE Sense mi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Ahn, S.; Kim, H.; Lee, E.; and Seo, Y.-D. 2024. SenDaL: An Effective and Efficient Calibration Framework of Low-Cost Sensors for Daily Life. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 11(11): 20619--20630

work page 2024
[2]

M.; and Potgieter, J

Ali, S.; Alam, F.; Arif, K. M.; and Potgieter, J. 2023. Low-Cost CO Sensor Calibration Using One Dimensional Convolutional Neural Network. Sensors, 23(2): 854

work page 2023
[3]

D.; Fouskas, G.; and Pandis, S

Apostolopoulos, I. D.; Fouskas, G.; and Pandis, S. N. 2023. Field Calibration of a Low-Cost Air Quality Monitoring Device in an Urban Background Site Using Machine Learning Models. Atmosphere, 14(2)

work page 2023
[4]

Aula, K.; Lagerspetz, E.; Nurmi, P.; and Tarkoma, S. 2022. Evaluation of Low-Cost Air Quality Sensor Calibration Models. ACM Trans. Sen. Netw., 18(4)

work page 2022
[5]

Concas, F.; Mineraud, J.; Lagerspetz, E.; Varjonen, S.; Liu, X.; Puolam\" a ki, K.; Nurmi, P.; and Tarkoma, S. 2021. Low-Cost Outdoor Air Quality Monitoring and Sensor Calibration: A Survey and Critical Analysis. ACM Trans. Sen. Netw., 17(2)

work page 2021
[6]

Elmqvist, N. 2023. Data Analytics Anywhere and Everywhere. Communications of the ACM, 66(12): 52–63

work page 2023
[7]

Freedman, D. A. 2009. Statistical Models: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2 edition

work page 2009
[8]

Hochreiter, S.; and Schmidhuber, J. 1997. Long Short-Term Memory . Neural Computation, 9(8): 1735--1780

1997

Show all 24 references

[9]

Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; and Hinton, G. E. 2012. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. In Pereira, F.; Burges, C.; Bottou, L.; and Weinberger, K., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25. Curran Associates, Inc

2012
[10]

Liu, Y.; Hu, T.; Zhang, H.; Wu, H.; Wang, S.; Ma, L.; and Long, M. 2024. iTransformer: Inverted Transformers Are Effective for Time Series Forecasting. In International Conference on Learning Representations

2024
[11]

V.; Rachavarapu, K

Narayana, M. V.; Rachavarapu, K. K.; Jalihal, D.; and Nagendra, S. M. S. 2024. Sens-BERT: A BERT-Based Approach for Enabling Transferability and Re-Calibration of Calibration Models for Low-Cost Sensors Under Reference Measurements Scarcity. IEEE Sensors Journal, 24(7): 11362–11373

2024
[12]

I.; and Roy, S

Nath, P.; Saha, P.; Middya, A. I.; and Roy, S. 2021. Long-term time-series pollution forecast using statistical and deep learning methods. Neural Computing and Applications, 33(19): 12551--12570

2021
[13]

Nguyen, N.; Sinthong, P.; and Kalagnanam, J

Nie, Y.; H. Nguyen, N.; Sinthong, P.; and Kalagnanam, J. 2023. A Time Series is Worth 64 Words: Long-term Forecasting with Transformers. In International Conference on Learning Representations

2023
[14]

L.; Buehler, C.; Xiong, F.; Gentner, D

Patton, A.; Datta, A.; Zamora, M. L.; Buehler, C.; Xiong, F.; Gentner, D. R.; and Koehler, K. 2022. Non-linear probabilistic calibration of low-cost environmental air pollution sensor networks for neighborhood level spatiotemporal exposure assessment. Journal of Exposure Scien...

2022
[15]

Ray, P. P. 2022. A review on TinyML: State-of-the-art and prospects. Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences, 34(4): 1595--1623

2022
[16]

Toner, W.; and Darlow, L. 2024. An Analysis of Linear Time Series Forecasting Models. arXiv:2403.14587

2024 arXiv
[17]

R.; Skaar, J

Van Poppel, M.; Schneider, P.; Peters, J.; Yatkin, S.; Gerboles, M.; Matheeussen, C.; Bartonova, A.; Davila, S.; Signorini, M.; Vogt, M.; Dauge, F. R.; Skaar, J. S.; and Haugen, R. 2023. SensEURCity: A multi-city air quality dataset collected for 2020/2021 using open low-cost ...

2023
[18]

N.; Kaiser, L.; and Polosukhin, I

Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, L.; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention Is All You Need. arXiv:1706.03762

2017 arXiv
[19]

Villanueva, E.; Espezua, S.; Castelar, G.; Diaz, K.; and Ingaroca, E. 2023. Smart Multi-Sensor Calibration of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Monitors. Sensors, 23(7): 3776

2023
[20]

Zeng, A.; Chen, M.; Zhang, L.; and Xu, Q. 2023. Are transformers effective for time series forecasting? In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 11121--11128

2023
[21]

Zhang, Y.; Ju, C.; Qin, J.; Song, L.; Liu, X.; Sun, W.; and Li, Z. 2023. STCM: A spatio-temporal calibration model for low-cost air monitoring sensors. Information Sciences, 644: 119307

2023
[22]

Zhou, H.; Zhang, S.; Peng, J.; Zhang, S.; Li, J.; Xiong, H.; and Zhang, W. 2021. Informer: Beyond Efficient Transformer for Long Sequence Time-Series Forecasting. In The Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Virtual Conference , 11106--11115. AAAI Press

2021
[23]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...
[24]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ahn, S.; Kim, H.; Lee, E.; and Seo, Y.-D. 2024. SenDaL: An Effective and Efficient Calibration Framework of Low-Cost Sensors for Daily Life. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 11(11): 20619--20630

work page 2024

[2] [2]

M.; and Potgieter, J

Ali, S.; Alam, F.; Arif, K. M.; and Potgieter, J. 2023. Low-Cost CO Sensor Calibration Using One Dimensional Convolutional Neural Network. Sensors, 23(2): 854

work page 2023

[3] [3]

D.; Fouskas, G.; and Pandis, S

Apostolopoulos, I. D.; Fouskas, G.; and Pandis, S. N. 2023. Field Calibration of a Low-Cost Air Quality Monitoring Device in an Urban Background Site Using Machine Learning Models. Atmosphere, 14(2)

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Aula, K.; Lagerspetz, E.; Nurmi, P.; and Tarkoma, S. 2022. Evaluation of Low-Cost Air Quality Sensor Calibration Models. ACM Trans. Sen. Netw., 18(4)

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Concas, F.; Mineraud, J.; Lagerspetz, E.; Varjonen, S.; Liu, X.; Puolam\" a ki, K.; Nurmi, P.; and Tarkoma, S. 2021. Low-Cost Outdoor Air Quality Monitoring and Sensor Calibration: A Survey and Critical Analysis. ACM Trans. Sen. Netw., 17(2)

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Elmqvist, N. 2023. Data Analytics Anywhere and Everywhere. Communications of the ACM, 66(12): 52–63

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Freedman, D. A. 2009. Statistical Models: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2 edition

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Hochreiter, S.; and Schmidhuber, J. 1997. Long Short-Term Memory . Neural Computation, 9(8): 1735--1780

1997