Corrigendum to “An Improved Sensor Calibration with Anomaly Detection and Removal” [Sens. Actuators B: Chem. 307 (15 March) (2020) 127428] (Sensors and Actuators: B. Chemical (2020) 307, (S0925400519316272), (10.1016/j.snb.2019.127428))

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corrigendum to “An Improved Sensor Calibration with Anomaly Detection and Removal” [Sens. Actuators B

T2 - Chem. 307 (15 March) (2020) 127428] (Sensors and Actuators: B. Chemical (2020) 307, (S0925400519316272), (10.1016/j.snb.2019.127428))

AU - Fang, Xinwei

AU - Bate, Iain

PY - 2020/10/1

Y1 - 2020/10/1

N2 - The authors regret for the following errors and obfuscations The Equation (8) s It is currently read: Completeness=#TruePositives#TruePositives+#TrueNegatives It should read: Completeness=#TruePositives#TruePositives+#FalseNegatives In the Section 4.4.2 Evaluation on Beijing dataset The authors would like to clarify two points. 1) It was incorrect to say we could not reproduce the work in Smith et al. (2019). We could reproduce the method but got slightly different results. An investigation has determined that our paper used different variables to train the Gaussian Process (GP) used for sensor calibration to those used in Smith et al. (2019), fully explaining why our GP calibration was less successful than the Smith et al. GP. 2) Our paper also does not clearly state the data used to set up the GP, in particular that some of the data used to train our GP comes from expensive reference grade instruments in contrast to Smith et al. who used only data from low-cost sensors. Using different input data does not affect the validity of the results or the insight gained, however clearly different trends may be seen if the same input data is used as Smith used. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

AB - The authors regret for the following errors and obfuscations The Equation (8) s It is currently read: Completeness=#TruePositives#TruePositives+#TrueNegatives It should read: Completeness=#TruePositives#TruePositives+#FalseNegatives In the Section 4.4.2 Evaluation on Beijing dataset The authors would like to clarify two points. 1) It was incorrect to say we could not reproduce the work in Smith et al. (2019). We could reproduce the method but got slightly different results. An investigation has determined that our paper used different variables to train the Gaussian Process (GP) used for sensor calibration to those used in Smith et al. (2019), fully explaining why our GP calibration was less successful than the Smith et al. GP. 2) Our paper also does not clearly state the data used to set up the GP, in particular that some of the data used to train our GP comes from expensive reference grade instruments in contrast to Smith et al. who used only data from low-cost sensors. Using different input data does not affect the validity of the results or the insight gained, however clearly different trends may be seen if the same input data is used as Smith used. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85085946145&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.snb.2020.128207

DO - 10.1016/j.snb.2020.128207

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85085946145

SN - 0925-4005

VL - 320

JO - Sensors and Actuators, B: Chemical

JF - Sensors and Actuators, B: Chemical

M1 - 128207

ER -