Primary competition visual

GeoAI Ground-level NO2 Estimation Challenge by ITU

Helping Italy
1 000 CHF
Challenge completed 12 months ago
Prediction
804 joined
372 active
Starti
May 22, 24
Closei
Nov 15, 24
Reveali
Nov 15, 24
User avatar
Shapu
Unofficial 3rd Place Solution
Connect · 16 Nov 2024, 20:52 · 3

*Thanks to Zindi and GeoAI for organizing this competition!

I joined the competition in the last 14 days, and it was a great experience.

Preprocessing

1. Feature Engineering:

- Created features based on longitude and latitude.

- Engineered some combination features to capture interactions between variables.

2. Data Cleaning:

- Removed three towns where the mean monthly NO₂ emissions were significantly different from the others. These anomalies negatively impacted the model's performance.

3. Imputation:

- Used forward fill (`ffill`) and mean imputation to handle missing data.

Training

1. Model Ensembling:

- Used an ensemble of two tree-based models for predictions witha custom cross validation method to avoid the leak .

Postprocessing

1. Adjustment by Coefficients :

- Adjusted results for each town using specific coefficients.

- Applied different coefficients for predictions before and after 01-01-2020.

2. Handling Similar Towns:

- For towns with very close counterparts in the training set, assigned values directly based on those counterparts.

- Alternatively, created a model trained only on the specific town's data (date and target). This overfit model was used for predictions on similar nearby towns.

This was our approach in brief.

Anyway, this competition taught me an important rule: "No additional members may be added to teams within the final 5 days of the competition or the last hour of a hackathon."

In the last 7 days of the competition, I collaborated with a friend to create a better solution, and we decided to team up on the final day. However, we later realized that this violated the rule, and we were disqualified.

This was entirely our mistake, and we take responsibility for it.

I still wish to see the first-place solution, as it must be incredible!

Discussion 3 answers
User avatar
Koleshjr
Multimedia university of kenya

Congratulations . What can you say was the key thing to get you to the 6 score??

17 Nov 2024, 04:14
Upvotes 0
User avatar
Shapu

The main two factors that created the gap between solutions were the adjustment by coefficients and the handling of similar towns. The adjustment by coefficients was the technique that made the CV score align with the leaderboard and allowed me to achieve a score of 6. , additionally, improving how I handled similar towns further boosted my solution, raising my score to 6.4 on the public leaderboard.

User avatar
Edgar121

First of all thank you for the explanation , I learned a lot

But ,can you share your notebook please , I get most of what you explain but for example I don't visualize how you ajusted the results

Did you use another model to do so ?

20 Nov 2024, 09:19
Upvotes 0