Engineering a GeoAI platform forecasts urban air quality in Greater Bilbao, indicating its reliability depends on disciplined engineering decisions.
This paper documents the engineering of an end-to-end GeoAI platform that monitors, spatially explains, and forecasts urban air quality across the Greater Bilbao metropolitan area. The system integrates an automated daily data pipeline (7 monitoring stations, ~29,000 daily records, 2015–2026), a four-notebook GIS spatial analysis layer (land-use buffers, landmark distances, DEM-derived terrain, wind-transport analysis), validated XGBoost forecasting models, SHAP-based explainability, and a tool-grounded conversational agent — all deployed as a public, continuously updated web application. Rather than presenting the platform as a finished product, this paper focuses on the engineering decisions behind it: why a strict temporal validation protocol replaced an initially inflated random-split evaluation (R² 0.84 → 0.479); why spatial context was engineered as a separate exploratory layer rather than injected into the forecasting models; why a parametric tool interface was chosen over free-form LLM data access; and which limitations remain unavoidable at n = 7 stations. The central claim is methodological: a GeoAI system is only as trustworthy as the engineering discipline behind it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arman Ghaziaskari Naeini (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: