PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 16, 2026Miscellanea Geographica1 citationsOpen Access

Evaluating machine learning models for air quality error mapping in Kraków, Poland

View Full Paper
MZMateusz ZarębaSCSzymon CogielEWElżbieta Węglińska

Key Points

  • The aim is to evaluate the accuracy of machine learning models for predicting air quality metrics, specifically PM2.5 concentrations.
  • Utilized a dense network of low-cost sensors for data collection.
  • Compared DLinear, XGBoost, and ARIMA in air quality predictions.
  • Analyzed prediction errors using Getis-Ord Gi* spatial statistics.
  • DLinear achieved the lowest RMSE of 3.8 µg/m3, outperforming XGBoost and ARIMA.
  • XGBoost's RMSE was 6.7 µg/m3, while ARIMA recorded 9.2 µg/m3.
  • Results show environmental factors affected model accuracy, particularly during varying pollution conditions.

Abstract

Abstract Accurate air quality prediction is essential for sustainable urban development. This study evaluates the performance of machine learning models, including DLinear and XGBoost, in comparison with the traditional Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) method for predicting fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) concentrations in Kraków, Poland. A dense network of low-cost sensors was used to generate high-resolution spatial and temporal data. Prediction errors were analysed using the Getis-Ord Gi* spatial statistics method during both extreme pollution events and low pollution days. The results indicate that DLinear achieved the lowest root mean square error (RMSE = 3.8 µg/m 3 ), followed by XGBoost (RMSE = 6.7 µg/m 3 ) and ARIMA (RMSE = 9.2 µg/m 3 ). The spatial distribution of errors highlights the influence of environmental factors, such as humidity and proximity to water bodies, on model accuracy. These findings show the limitations of current prediction models and emphasize the need for spatially adaptive approaches to improve pollution.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zaręba et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6969d4c3940543b977709a84https://doi.org/10.2478/mgrsd-2025-0026
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper