Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Can Deep Learning Trigger Alerts from Mobile-Captured Images?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A regression-based CNN trained on mobile-captured images predicts PM2.5 and PM10 with mean squared error as low as 0.0077, then estimates five further pollutants from those two values.

desk verdict A plausible application with a useful negative result on data augmentation, but the headline MSE claim is unsupported by any same-data comparison and the image-label pairing is undocumented. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03499 v1 pith:RYORWSXN submitted 2025-01-07 cs.CV cs.AI

Pritisha Sarkar , Duranta Durbaar Vishal Saha , Mousumi Saha This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords airqualitypredictionconvolutionalneuralnetworkmobilecameraimagesdataaugmentationPM2.5PM10regressionreal-timedashboard
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

This paper argues that a single photograph taken with a mobile phone camera carries enough visual information about haze and sky conditions to estimate ground-level air pollution. The authors build a regression-based convolutional neural network, HealthCamCNN, that first predicts PM2.5 and PM10 from the image and then feeds those two values into a second stage that predicts five more pollutants. On their dataset of 5,455 daytime images from three Indian cities, they report mean squared errors of 0.0077 for the two-pollutant task and 0.0112 for the five-pollutant task, which they say beats existing image-based models. They also report that data augmentation changes the final error by only a negligible amount, contradicting the common assumption that augmented sky images are needed. If these results hold, mobile photos could serve as low-cost, real-time air quality sensors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stage branched regression CNN: three convolutional blocks (32, 64, and 64 filters of size 3x3, each followed by LeakyReLU and 2x2 max-pooling) extract features from the image; a flattened vector feeds two separate multilayer perceptrons, one that outputs PM2.5 and PM10 and one that outputs the remaining five pollutants; the predicted PM2.5 and PM10 values are then used as additional input for the second MLP. The paper also relies on a vertical split-and-mirror augmentation scheme whose key property is that it preserves the sky's position, and the finding that horizontal reflection does not change the final training loss is used to reject an earlier assumption about sky orientation.

What would settle it

Take the 5,455 image-pollutant pairs, hold out all images from one or more full days or monitoring stations, retrain the same architecture, and measure test MSE; if the error jumps far above 0.0077 and 0.0112 while a random split stays low, the reported numbers are an artifact of label leakage rather than a visual signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a two-stage, branched regression CNN can map a 224x224 RGB mobile photo directly to pollutant concentrations, with the first stage predicting PM2.5 and PM10 and the second stage predicting five additional pollutants from those two predictions. The authors claim this architecture outperforms a model that predicts all seven outputs in parallel, and that it outperforms existing image-based air quality models, citing MSE values that are lower than the comparison baselines. Equally central is the negative result on augmentation: after training with vertically split-and-mirrored images and horizontally reflected images, the plateaued error is nearly identical to training on the original images, which the authors read as evidence that the widely used augmentation step can be dropped without harming accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The labels are valid: each of the 5,455 photos was captured at the same time and place as the 2023 PM2.5 and PM10 measurement used as its target, and the train/test split does not leak information across nearby photos; the paper does not state how images were matched to pollutant data, which monitoring stations were used, or how the data were split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Air quality estimates become possible from ordinary smartphone photos, without deploying or maintaining physical sensors.
  • The two-stage scheme reduces the number of output heads and lets the second stage exploit the statistical relationship among pollutants, lowering reported error.
  • Data augmentation of sky images can be omitted without a meaningful accuracy penalty, saving training time and memory.
  • A public-facing dashboard can recommend whether a location is safe for a given user's health profile, based only on an uploaded photo.
  • The reported MSE values set a quantitative benchmark that later image-based air quality models would need to beat.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the label-matching details are not clarified, the reported MSE could reflect leakage: a random train/test split over photos taken near the same monitor at nearby times would make the task artificially easy; a temporal or geographic holdout would test the true visual signal.
  • The two-stage design implies that errors in the first-stage PM2.5 and PM10 predictions propagate into the five secondary pollutant predictions; the paper does not quantify this error amplification.
  • The augmentation finding, if general, suggests that model capacity and training data size matter less than the visual signal for this task, but it is only tested on this dataset, architecture, and augmentation recipe.
  • A practical extension would be to calibrate the normalized pollutant outputs back to absolute concentrations and compare them against regulatory thresholds, something the dashboard currently does only indirectly through AQI categories.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a convolutional neural network regression model, 'HealthCamCNN', that predicts air pollutant concentrations from mobile-captured images. The authors report MSE values of 0.0077 for two pollutants (PM2.5 and PM10) and 0.0112 for five pollutants, claiming these outperform existing models. They also analyze the effect of data augmentation and implement a dashboard that maps predicted pollutant values to location-suitability recommendations based on user health conditions. The experiments use a dataset of 5,455 daytime images from Bengaluru, Delhi, and Tamil Nadu paired with 2023 PM2.5/PM10 values, but the paper provides no comparison against prior methods on the same data and does not specify the data-splitting or label-matching protocol.

Significance. If the headline claim were valid, the work would be practically significant: a single mobile-captured image yielding pollutant estimates competitive with or better than existing image-based models would offer a low-cost air quality monitoring tool. The paper also attempts a useful empirical check of horizontal reflection as a data augmentation technique for sky-dominated images. However, the central claim of outperforming existing models is not supported by any same-data comparison, the dataset construction is under-specified, and the architecture descriptions are internally contradictory. The paper ships no code or data, and the evaluation protocol is too incomplete to verify the reported numbers, so the significance is currently not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section 6] The central claim that the reported MSE values (0.0077 for two pollutants, 0.0112 for five) 'outperform existing models' is unsupported. Tables 4-6 report only absolute MSE/MAE values for the proposed models; no prior method is evaluated on the same dataset, and no comparable metrics from the cited works are given. Without a same-data baseline, the superiority claim has no empirical basis and cannot be checked.
  2. [Section 4] The construction of the 5,455-image dataset is critically under-specified. The text only says images were 'paired with corresponding PM2.5 and PM10 values from 2023.' It does not state which monitoring stations supplied the pollutant values, how images were geolocated, whether capture time coincides with measurement time, or how the pairing was performed. If a photo is paired with a pollutant measurement from a different location or time, the CNN learns a spurious mapping and the reported MSE is meaningless. The declaration 'Availability of data - NA' further prevents verification.
  3. [Section 6] The paper contains a direct contradiction about which architecture produced the best results. It first states that the two-stage model (predicting two pollutants, then five from those two) 'outperforms the second model which branches the 2 groups of parameters after the convolution block,' then immediately states 'the latter outperforms the former, thereby establishing the branched CNN model as the superior architecture.' The headline MSE values in the abstract correspond to the Delhi entries in Tables 5 and 6, which are attributed to the branched model. The manuscript must unambiguously identify the model used for each reported result and correct the contradictory prose.
  4. [Section 6, Tables 4-6] No train/test split or evaluation protocol is described. The paper does not state how the 5,455 images were partitioned into training, validation, and test sets, whether the split was stratified by city or AQI class, or whether the split was disjoint in time and location. Since all models were run for 50 epochs with no mention of early stopping or regularization beyond dropout-free architecture, the reported MSE values could reflect training-set memorization rather than generalization. A clear held-out evaluation procedure must be reported for the results to be interpretable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] There is a typo in the list of contributions: 'HealhCamCNN' should be 'HealthCamCNN'.
  2. [Tables 4-6] The city name 'Bengalore' appears in multiple tables; it should be 'Bengaluru.'
  3. [References] References [6] and [24] are the same paper (Kalajdjieski et al.) but are listed with different details; they should be merged and renumbered.
  4. [Section 6.1] The augmentation results are described in prose and in Figure 2, but no quantitative comparison of final MAE/MSE values with and without augmentation is provided in the text; please add the numerical values used to support the claim of 'minimal accuracy differences.'
  5. [Section 6] The statement that 'all the output parameters range between [0,1] during training and are then unnormalized using the inverse transform' does not specify the normalization method (e.g., min-max scaling), whether scaling was fitted per city or globally, or how inverse transform was applied to the predicted values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the CNN regression pipeline is independently specified and the self-citation to [1] is contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is a standard supervised regression setup: RGB images are inputs, pollutant values are labels, and the reported MSE values are presented as test-set errors from trained models. No equation in the paper defines an output in terms of the claimed prediction, nor does it fit a parameter to the target quantity and then rename that fitted value a prediction. The cascaded segment-3 design, in which five pollutants are estimated from the model's own PM2.5/PM10 predictions, is an architectural choice with potential train/inference mismatch risk, not a circular definition: the five pollutant targets are separate ground-truth labels and are not constructed from the two predicted outputs in the loss function or evaluation. The only self-citation, [1], is used to position prior work as a demonstration of a modified CNN on the same task; the present architecture and experiments are described in the paper itself, so the citation is not load-bearing. The abstract's comparative superiority claim, the missing documentation of how images were matched in time and space to 2023 pollutant values, the absence of a described train/test split, and the contradictory statements in Section 6 about whether the two-stage or branched model outperforms are all evidentiary and reproducibility concerns, not circular reasoning. The declared unavailability of data and code ('Availability of data - NA', 'Code availability - NA') further weakens verifiability but does not make the derivation circular. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the validity of the image-label pairing, which is not described. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Model hyperparameters (filter counts 32/64, kernel 3x3, pool 2x2, 50 epochs, Adam)
    Chosen without reported hyperparameter search; these design choices affect the reported MSE.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Each photo is paired with ground-truth pollutant values from the same time and location.
    The CNN learns a mapping from image to pollutant level; if the pairing is wrong, the learned relationship is spurious. The paper does not describe the capture protocol.
  • domain assumption The pollutant data from the three cities are accurate sensor readings.
    The paper uses a historical dataset but does not identify the monitoring stations or data source.
  • domain assumption The train/test split is random and representative of each city's image distribution.
    No split description is given; if images are grouped by date or location, the reported test MSE may be optimistic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Deep Learning Trigger Alerts from Mobile-Captured Images?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYORWSXN

@misc{pith2026250103499,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Deep Learning Trigger Alerts from Mobile-Captured Images?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYORWSXN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03499}
}
read the original abstract

Our research presents a comprehensive approach to leveraging mobile camera image data for real-time air quality assessment and recommendation. We develop a regression-based Convolutional Neural Network model and tailor it explicitly for air quality prediction by exploiting the inherent relationship between output parameters. As a result, the Mean Squared Error of 0.0077 and 0.0112 obtained for 2 and 5 pollutants respectively outperforms existing models. Furthermore, we aim to verify the common practice of augmenting the original dataset with a view to introducing more variation in the training phase. It is one of our most significant contributions that our experimental results demonstrate minimal accuracy differences between the original and augmented datasets. Finally, a real-time, user-friendly dashboard is implemented which dynamically displays the Air Quality Index and pollutant values derived from captured mobile camera images. Users' health conditions are considered to recommend whether a location is suitable based on current air quality metrics. Overall, this research contributes to verification of data augmentation techniques, CNN-based regression modelling for air quality prediction, and user-centric air quality monitoring through mobile technology. The proposed system offers practical solutions for individuals to make informed environmental health and well-being decisions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    3949–3952 (2017)

    Chakma, A., Vizena, B., Cao, T., Lin, J., Zhang, J.: Image-based air quality analysis using deep convolutional neural network, pp. 3949–3952 (2017). https: //doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2017.8297023

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Journal of Environ- mental Management 307, 114560 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022

    Kow, P.-Y., Hsia, I.-W., Chang, L.-C., Chang, F.-J.: Real-time image-based air quality estimation by deep learning neural networks. Journal of Environ- mental Management 307, 114560 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022. 114560

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022 2022

  3. [1]

    Envi- ronmental Quality Management 34 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.22276 13

    Sarkar, P., Saha, D., Saha, M.: Real-time air quality index detection through regression-based convolutional neural network model on captured images. Envi- ronmental Quality Management 34 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.22276 13

    work page doi:10.1002/tqem.22276 2024

  4. [3]

    Symmetry 11(5) (2019) https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11050610

    Xu, X., Ren, W.: A hybrid model based on a two-layer decomposition approach and an optimized neural network for chaotic time series prediction. Symmetry 11(5) (2019) https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11050610

    work page doi:10.3390/sym11050610 2019

  5. [4]

    J Kusznir, Cook, D.J.: Predicting air quality in smart environ- ments

    S Deleawe, B.L. J Kusznir, Cook, D.J.: Predicting air quality in smart environ- ments. J. Ambient Intell. Smart Environ. 2, 145–154 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [7]

    Earth Science Informatics 11, 413–422 (2018)

    Vahdatpour, M.S., Sajedi, H., Ramezani, F.: Air pollution forecasting from sky images with shallow and deep classifiers. Earth Science Informatics 11, 413–422 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [8]

    Remote Sensing 12(16) (2020) https://doi.org/10

    Masarczyk, W., G lomb, P., Grabowski, B., Ostaszewski, M.: Effective train- ing of deep convolutional neural networks for hyperspectral image classification through artificial labeling. Remote Sensing 12(16) (2020) https://doi.org/10. 3390/rs12162653

    work page 2020

  8. [9]

    Atmospheric Environment37, 155–182 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00857-9

    Vardoulakis, S., Fisher, B., Pericleous, K., Gonzalez-Flesca, N.: Modelling air quality in street canyons: A review. Atmospheric Environment37, 155–182 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00857-9

    doi:10.1016/s1352-2310(02)00857-9 2003

Show all 34 references
  1. [10]

    A Donnelly, B.M., Broderick, B.: Real-time air quality forecasting using inte- grated parametric and nonparametric regression techniques. Atmos. Environ103, 53–65 (2015)

    2015

  2. [11]

    Atmospheric Environment 42, 8331–8340 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.07

    Diaz-Robles, L., Ortega-Bravo, J.C., Fu, J., Reed, G., Chow, J., Watson, J., Moncada, J.: A hybrid arima and artificial neural networks model to fore- cast particulate matter in urban areas: The case of temuco, chile. Atmospheric Environment 42, 8331–8340 (2008) https://doi.or...

    2008 doi

  3. [12]

    Expert Syst

    Dong, M., Yang, D., Kuang, Y., He, D., Erdal, S., Kenski, D.: Pm2.5 concentra- tion prediction using hidden semi-markov model-based times series data mining. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 9046–9055 (2009) 14

    2009

  4. [13]

    Remote Sensing 12(17) (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172839

    Valentijn, T., Margutti, J., Homberg, M., Laaksonen, J.: Multi-hazard and spa- tial transferability of a cnn for automated building damage assessment. Remote Sensing 12(17) (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172839

    2020 doi

  5. [14]

    Applied Sciences 10(17) (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.3390/app10175792

    Petrovska, B., Atanasova-Pacemska, T., Corizzo, R., Mignone, P., Lameski, P., Zdravevski, E.: Aerial scene classification through fine-tuning with adaptive learn- ing rates and label smoothing. Applied Sciences 10(17) (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.3390/app10175792

    2020 doi

  6. [15]

    Sensors 20(14) (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/s20143906

    Petrovska, B., Zdravevski, E., Lameski, P., Corizzo, R., ˇStajduhar, I., Lerga, J.: Deep learning for feature extraction in remote sensing: A case-study of aerial scene classification. Sensors 20(14) (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/s20143906

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    Remote Sensing 12(20) (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12203431

    Cabezas, M., Kentsch, S., Tomhave, L., Gross, J., Caceres, M.L.L., Diez, Y.: Detection of invasive species in wetlands: Practical dl with heavily imbalanced data. Remote Sensing 12(20) (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12203431

    2020 doi

  8. [17]

    Procedia Computer Science 132, 1394–1403 (2018) https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.068

    V, A., P, G., R, V., K P, S.: Deepairnet: Applying recurrent networks for air quality prediction. Procedia Computer Science 132, 1394–1403 (2018) https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.068 . International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Data Science

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    Frontiers in Big Data 5, 842455 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2022.842455

    Chau, P., Zalakeviciute, R., Thomas, I., Rybarczyk, Y.: Deep learning approach for assessing air quality during covid-19 lockdown in quito. Frontiers in Big Data 5, 842455 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2022.842455

    2022

  10. [19]

    Applied Sciences 12(20) (2022) https: //doi.org/10.3390/app122010405

    Ko, K.-K., Jung, E.-S.: Improving air pollution prediction system through multi- modal deep learning model optimization. Applied Sciences 12(20) (2022) https: //doi.org/10.3390/app122010405

    2022 doi

  11. [20]

    IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 33(6), 2412–2424 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2019.2954510

    Du, S., Li, T., Yang, Y., Horng, S.-J.: Deep air quality forecasting using hybrid deep learning framework. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 33(6), 2412–2424 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2019.2954510

    2021

  12. [21]

    Procedia Computer Science 135, 89–98 (2018) https://doi.org/10

    Salman, A., Heryadi, Y., Abdurahman, E., Suparta, W.: Single layer & multi-layer long short-term memory (lstm) model with intermediate variables for weather forecasting. Procedia Computer Science 135, 89–98 (2018) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.procs.2018.08.153

    2018

  13. [22]

    Journal of Big Data 8 (2021) https://doi.org/10

    Bekkar, A., Hssina, B., Douzi, S., Khadija, D.: Air-pollution prediction in smart city, deep learning approach. Journal of Big Data 8 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 1186/s40537-021-00548-1

    2021

  14. [23]

    IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 300, 032073 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/300/3/032073 15

    Xie, H., Ji, L., Wang, Q., Jia, Z.: Research of pm2.5 prediction system based on cnns-gru in wuxi urban area. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 300, 032073 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/300/3/032073 15

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    Remote Sensing 12(24) (2020) https://doi.org/10

    Kalajdjieski, J., Zdravevski, E., Corizzo, R., Lameski, P., Kalajdziski, S., Pires, I.M., Garcia, N.M., Trajkovik, V.: Air pollution prediction with multi-modal data and deep neural networks. Remote Sensing 12(24) (2020) https://doi.org/10. 3390/rs12244142

    2020

  16. [25]

    ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences IV-4/W2, 175–181 (2017) https://doi.org/10

    Karimian, H., Li, Q., LI, C., Fan, J., Jin, L., Gong, C., Mo, Y., Hou, J., Ahmad, A.: Daily estimation of fine particulate matter mass concentration through satellite based aerosol optical depth. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences I...

    2017

  17. [26]

    Atmospheric Pollution Research15, 101987 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.apr.2023.101987

    Yang, X., Yang, Y., Xu, S., Karimian, H., Zhao, Y., Jin, L., Xu, Y., Qi, Y.: Unveiling the air pollution tapestry in china: A comprehensive assessment of spatiotemporal variations through geographically and temporally weighted regres- sion. Atmospheric Pollution Research15, 10...

    2023

  18. [27]

    Environmental research 216, 114465 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114465

    Karimian, H., Li, Y., Chen, Y., Wang, Z.: Evaluation of different machine learn- ing approaches and aerosol optical depth in pm 2.5 prediction. Environmental research 216, 114465 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114465

    2023

  19. [28]

    Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30, 1–21 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27886-2

    Karimian, H., Huang, J., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Huang, J.: A novel framework to predict chlorophyll-a concentrations in water bodies through multi-source big data and machine learning algorithms. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30, 1–21 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007...

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    IEEE Access PP, 1–1 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2020.3005343

    Qiu, Z., Jiao, M., Jiang, T., Zhou, L.: Dam structure deformation monitoring by gb-insar approach. IEEE Access PP, 1–1 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2020.3005343

    2020

  21. [30]

    Applied Sciences 7, 566 (2017) https://doi.org/10.3390/app7060566

    Cai, J., Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Liang, X.S., Jiang, T.: Analyzing the characteristics of soil moisture using gldas data: A case study in eastern china. Applied Sciences 7, 566 (2017) https://doi.org/10.3390/app7060566

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    Journal of Hydroinformatics 23 (2021) https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro

    Chen, Y., Zhang, X., Karimian, H., Huang, J.: A novel framework for predic- tion of dam deformation based on extreme learning machine and l´ evy flight bat algorithm. Journal of Hydroinformatics 23 (2021) https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro. 2021.178

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    Chemosphere 333, 138867 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138867

    Elbaz, K., Shaban, W.M., Zhou, A., Shen, S.-L.: Real time image-based air quality forecasts using a 3d-cnn approach with an attention mechanism. Chemosphere 333, 138867 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138867

    2023

  24. [33]

    Aptisi Transactions on Technopreneurship (ATT) 5, 109–123 (2023) https://doi.org/10.34306/att.v5i1Sp.337 16

    Hardini, M., Chakim, M., Magdalena, L., Kenta, H., Rafika, A., Julianingsih, D.: Image-based air quality prediction using convolutional neural networks and machine learning. Aptisi Transactions on Technopreneurship (ATT) 5, 109–123 (2023) https://doi.org/10.34306/att.v5i1Sp.337 16

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    Scientific Reports

    Zhao, Z., Cai, F., Zhang, S., Wang, Y.-G.: A hybrid deep learning framework for air quality prediction with spatial autocorrelation during the covid-19 pandemic. Scientific Reports. 13, 1015 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-28287-8

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    Vision-Based Particulate Mat- ter Estimation, pp

    Zhang, K., Chen, Z., Xiang, Y.: Chapter 1. Vision-Based Particulate Mat- ter Estimation, pp. 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811266911 0001 . https: //www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811266911 0001 17

    doi

Pith tools

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