SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2303.12963

Forecast-Aware Model Driven LSTM

Abstract

Poor air quality can have a significant impact on human health. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) air quality forecasting guidance is challenged by the increasing presence of extreme air quality events due to extreme weather events such as wild fires and heatwaves. These extreme air quality events further affect human health. Traditional methods used to correct model bias make assumptions about linearity and the underlying distribution. Extreme air quality events tend to occur without a strong signal leading up to the event and this behavior tends to cause existing methods to either under or over compensate for the bias. Deep learning holds promise for air quality forecasting in the presence of extreme air quality events due to its ability to generalize and learn nonlinear problems. However, in the presence of these anomalous air quality events, standard deep network approaches that use a single network for generalizing to future forecasts, may not always provide the best performance even with a full feature-set including geography and meteorology. In this work we describe a method that combines unsupervised learning and a forecast-aware bi-directional LSTM network to perform bias correction for operational air quality forecasting using AirNow station data for ozone and PM2.5 in the continental US. Using an unsupervised clustering method trained on station geographical features such as latitude and longitude, urbanization, and elevation, the learned clusters direct training by partitioning the training data for the LSTM networks. LSTMs are forecast-aware and implemented using a unique way to perform learning forward and backwards in time across forecasting days. When comparing the RMSE of the forecast model to the RMSE of the bias corrected model, the bias corrected model shows significant improvement (27\% lower RMSE for ozone) over the base forecast.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sophia Hamer, Jennifer Sleeman, Ivanka Stajner. 2023-03-23. Forecast-Aware Model Driven LSTM. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12963

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG