Calibrating chemical multisensory devices for real world applications: An in-depth comparison of quantitative Machine Learning approaches
August 30, 2017 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
S. De Vito, E. Esposito, M. Salvato, O. Popoola, F. Formisano, R. Jones, G. Di Francia
arXiv ID
1708.09175
Category
cs.AI: Artificial Intelligence
Cross-listed
cs.NE
Citations
106
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Chemical multisensor devices need calibration algorithms to estimate gas concentrations. Their possible adoption as indicative air quality measurements devices poses new challenges due to the need to operate in continuous monitoring modes in uncontrolled environments. Several issues, including slow dynamics, continue to affect their real world performances. At the same time, the need for estimating pollutant concentrations on board the devices, espe- cially for wearables and IoT deployments, is becoming highly desirable. In this framework, several calibration approaches have been proposed and tested on a variety of proprietary devices and datasets; still, no thorough comparison is available to researchers. This work attempts a benchmarking of the most promising calibration algorithms according to recent literature with a focus on machine learning approaches. We test the techniques against absolute and dynamic performances, generalization capabilities and computational/storage needs using three different datasets sharing continuous monitoring operation methodology. Our results can guide researchers and engineers in the choice of optimal strategy. They show that non-linear multivariate techniques yield reproducible results, outperforming lin- ear approaches. Specifically, the Support Vector Regression method consistently shows good performances in all the considered scenarios. We highlight the enhanced suitability of shallow neural networks in a trade-off between performance and computational/storage needs. We confirm, on a much wider basis, the advantages of dynamic approaches with respect to static ones that only rely on instantaneous sensor array response. The latter have been shown to be best choice whenever prompt and precise response is needed.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Artificial Intelligence
π
π
The Cartographer
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Machine Learning: Concept and Applications
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
DeepAR: Probabilistic Forecasting with Autoregressive Recurrent Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Rainbow: Combining Improvements in Deep Reinforcement Learning
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted