skip to main content
research-article

Sparse Grid Imputation Using Unpaired Imprecise Auxiliary Data: Theory and Application to PM2.5 Estimation

Published:12 January 2024Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Sparse grid imputation (SGI) is a challenging problem, as its goal is to infer the values of the entire grid from a limited number of cells with values. Traditionally, the problem is solved using regression methods such as KNN and kriging, whereas in the real world, there is often extra information—usually imprecise—that can aid inference and yield better performance. In the SGI problem, in addition to the limited number of fixed grid cells with precise target domain values, there are contextual data and imprecise observations over the whole grid. To solve this problem, we propose a distribution estimation theory for the whole grid and realize the theory via the composition architecture of the Target-Embedding and the Contextual CycleGAN trained with contextual information and imprecise observations. Contextual CycleGAN is structured as two generator–discriminator pairs and uses different types of contextual loss to guide the training. We consider the real-world problem of fine-grained PM2.5 inference with realistic settings: a few (less than 1%) grid cells with precise PM2.5 data and all grid cells with contextual information concerning weather and imprecise observations from satellites and microsensors. The task is to infer reasonable values for all grid cells. As there is no ground truth for empty cells, out-of-sample mean squared error and Jensen–Shannon divergence measurements are used in the empirical study. The results show that Contextual CycleGAN supports the proposed theory and outperforms the methods used for comparison.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Abbas Hazem M. and Fahmy Moustafa M.. 1994. Neural networks for maximum likelihood clustering. Sign. Process. 36, 1 (1994), 111126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. [2] Alimissis A., Philippopoulos K., Tzanis C. G., and Deligiorgi D.. 2018. Spatial estimation of urban air pollution with the use of artificial neural network models. Atmos. Environ. 191 (2018), 205213.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. [3] Awan Saqib Ejaz, Bennamoun Mohammed, Sohel Ferdous, Sanfilippo Frank, and Dwivedi Girish. 2021. Imputation of missing data with class imbalance using conditional generative adversarial networks. Neurocomputing 453 (2021), 164171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [4] Bhajaj Prem, Panchal Pratik, Patel Neil, Shinde Rucha, and Gawade Aruna. 2022. FIGSI-facial image generation for suspect identification. In Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Expert Systems. Springer, 877891.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Bridle John. 1989. Training stochastic model recognition algorithms as networks can lead to maximum mutual information estimation of parameters. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2 (1989).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [6] Candes Emmanuel J., Eldar Yonina C., Strohmer Thomas, and Voroninski Vladislav. 2015. Phase retrieval via matrix completion. SIAM Rev. 57, 2 (2015), 225251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Candes Emmanuel J. and Plan Yaniv. 2010. Matrix completion with noise. Proc. IEEE 98, 6 (2010), 925936.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Candès Emmanuel J. and Recht Benjamin. 2009. Exact matrix completion via convex optimization. Found. Comput. Math. 9, 6 (2009), 717.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Chen Ling-Jyh, Ho Yao-Hua, Lee Hu-Cheng, Wu Hsuan-Cho, Liu Hao-Min, Hsieh Hsin-Hung, Huang Yu-Te, and Lung Shih-Chun Candice. 2017. An open framework for participatory PM2. 5 monitoring in smart cities. IEEE Access 5 (2017), 1444114454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Chen Xi, Duan Yan, Houthooft Rein, Schulman John, Sutskever Ilya, and Abbeel Pieter. 2016. Infogan: Interpretable representation learning by information maximizing generative adversarial nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 21722180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] Choi Yunjey, Choi Minje, Kim Munyoung, Ha Jung-Woo, Kim Sunghun, and Choo Jaegul. 2018. Stargan: Unified generative adversarial networks for multi-domain image-to-image translation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 87898797.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. [12] Choi Yunjey, Uh Youngjung, Yoo Jaejun, and Ha Jung-Woo. 2020. Stargan v2: Diverse image synthesis for multiple domains. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 81888197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] Do Tien Huu, Nguyen Duc Minh, Tsiligianni Evaggelia, Aguirre Angel Lopez, Manna Valerio Panzica La, Pasveer Frank, Philips Wilfried, and Deligiannis Nikos. 2019. Matrix completion with variational graph autoencoders: Application in hyperlocal air quality inference. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP’19). IEEE, 75357539.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Fix Evelyn and Hodges Joseph Lawson. 1989. Discriminatory analysis. nonparametric discrimination: Consistency properties. Int. Stat. Rev. 57, 3 (1989), 238247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Fuglede Bent and Topsoe Flemming. 2004. Jensen-shannon divergence and hilbert space embedding. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT’04). IEEE, 31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Gao Yujia, Liu Liang, Zhang Chi, Wang Xiao, and Ma Huadong. 2020. SI-AGAN: Spatial interpolation with attentional generative adversarial networks for environment monitoring. In Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Goodfellow Ian, Bengio Yoshua, Courville Aaron, and Bengio Yoshua. 2016. Deep Learning. Vol. 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Goodfellow Ian, Pouget-Abadie Jean, Mirza Mehdi, Xu Bing, Warde-Farley David, Ozair Sherjil, Courville Aaron, and Bengio Yoshua. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 26722680.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. [19] He Kaiming, Zhang Xiangyu, Ren Shaoqing, and Sun Jian. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 770778.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. [20] He Zhenliang, Zuo Wangmeng, Kan Meina, Shan Shiguang, and Chen Xilin. 2019. AttGAN: Facial attribute editing by only changing what you want. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 28, 11 (2019), 54645478.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [21] Hinton Geoffrey E. and Salakhutdinov Ruslan R.. 2006. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science 313, 5786 (2006), 504507.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. [22] Ho Chi-Chang, Chen Ling-Jyh, and Hwang Jing-Shiang. 2020. Estimating ground-level PM2. 5 levels in taiwan using data from air quality monitoring stations and high coverage of microsensors. Environ. Pollut. 264 (2020), 114810.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Hsieh Hsun-Ping, Lin Shou-De, and Zheng Yu. 2015. Inferring air quality for station location recommendation based on urban big data. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 437446.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [24] Hu Mingming and Guo Jingtao. 2020. Facial attribute-controlled sketch-to-image translation with generative adversarial networks. EURASIP J. Image Vid. Process. 2020, 1 (2020), 113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Jain Prateek, Netrapalli Praneeth, and Sanghavi Sujay. 2013. Low-rank matrix completion using alternating minimization. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 665674.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Jarrett Daniel and Schaar Mihaela van der. 2020. Target-embedding autoencoders for supervised representation learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR’20).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Joshi Ameya, Cho Minsu, Shah Viraj, Pokuri Balaji Sesha Sarath, Sarkar Soumik, Ganapathysubramanian Baskar, and Hegde Chinmay. 2020. InvNet: Encoding geometric and statistical invariances in deep generative models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’20). 43774384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Kang Zhao, Peng Chong, and Cheng Qiang. 2016. Top-n recommender system via matrix completion. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Keshavan Raghunandan H., Montanari Andrea, and Oh Sewoong. 2010. Matrix completion from a few entries. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 56, 6 (2010), 29802998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Kow Pu-Yun, Chang Li-Chiu, Lin Chuan-Yao, Chou Charles C-K, and Chang Fi-John. 2022. Deep neural networks for spatiotemporal PM2. 5 forecasts based on atmospheric chemical transport model output and monitoring data. Environ. Pollut. 306 (2022), 119348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. [31] Krige Daniel G.. 1951. A statistical approach to some basic mine valuation problems on the witwatersrand. J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metallurg. 52, 6 (1951), 119139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [32] Kullback Solomon and Leibler Richard A. 1951. On information and sufficiency. Ann. Math. Stat. 22, 1 (1951), 7986.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] LeCun Yann, Boser Bernhard, Denker John S., Henderson Donnie, Howard Richard E., Hubbard Wayne, and Jackel Lawrence D.. 1989. Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition. Neural Comput. 1, 4 (1989), 541551.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. [34] Lee Woojin, Lee Sungyoon, Byun Junyoung, Kim Hoki, and Lee Jaewook. 2022. Variational cycle-consistent imputation adversarial networks for general missing patterns. Pattern Recogn. (2022), 108720.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [35] Li Jiayu, Zhang Huang, Chao Chun-Ying, Chien Chih-Hsiang, Wu Chang-Yu, Luo Cyuan Heng, Chen Ling-Jyh, and Biswas Pratim. 2020. Integrating low-cost air quality sensor networks with fixed and satellite monitoring systems to study ground-level PM2. 5. Atmos. Environ. 223 (2020), 117293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. [36] Li Steven Cheng-Xian, Jiang Bo, and Marlin Benjamin. 2019. Misgan: Learning from incomplete data with generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR’19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. [37] Lin Guan-Yu, Lee Yi-Ming, Tsai Chuen-Jinn, and Lin Chia-Ying. 2022. Spatial-temporal characterization of air pollutants using a hybrid deep learning/Kriging model incorporated with a weather normalization technique. Atmos. Environ. 289 (2022), 119304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] Liu Ming-Yu and Tuzel Oncel. 2016. Coupled generative adversarial networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 29 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. [39] Liu Ning, Ma Rui, Wang Yue, and Zhang Lin. 2019. Inferring fine-grained air pollution map via a spatiotemporal super-resolution scheme. In Adjunct Proceedings of the ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers. 498504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. [40] Lu Yongyi, Tai Yu-Wing, and Tang Chi-Keung. 2018. Attribute-guided face generation using conditional cyclegan. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV’18). 282297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. [41] Luo Xiaodong, Chen Xiang, He Xiaohai, Qing Linbo, and Tan Xinyue. 2022. CMAFGAN: A cross-modal attention fusion based generative adversarial network for attribute word-to-face synthesis. Knowl.-Bas. Syst. 255 (2022), 109750.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Ma Jun, Ding Yuexiong, Cheng Jack C. P., Jiang Feifeng, and Wan Zhiwei. 2019. A temporal-spatial interpolation and extrapolation method based on geographic long short-term memory neural network for PM2. 5. J. Clean. Prod. 237 (2019), 117729.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. [43] Ma Rui, Xu Xiangxiang, Wang Yue, Noh Hae Young, Zhang Pei, and Zhang Lin. 2018. Guiding the data learning process with physical model in air pollution inference. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data’18). IEEE, 44754483.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] Miao Xiaoye, Wu Yangyang, Wang Jun, Gao Yunjun, Mao Xudong, and Yin Jianwei. 2021. Generative semi-supervised learning for multivariate time series imputation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35. 89838991.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. [45] Mirza Mehdi and Osindero Simon. 2014. Conditional generative adversarial nets. arXiv:1411.1784. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1784Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. [46] Mohri Mehryar, Rostamizadeh Afshin, and Talwalkar Ameet. 2018. Foundations of Machine Learning. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. [47] Montgomery Douglas C., Peck Elizabeth A., and Vining G. Geoffrey. 2021. Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. [48] Murphy Benjamin S.. 2014. PyKrige: Development of a kriging toolkit for python. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. H51K–0753.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. [49] Osahor Uche, Kazemi Hadi, Dabouei Ali, and Nasrabadi Nasser. 2020. Quality guided sketch-to-photo image synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. 820821.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. [50] Qiu Wei, Huang Yangsibo, and Li Quanzheng. 2020. IFGAN: Missing value imputation using feature-specific generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data’20). IEEE, 47154723.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. [51] Rivera-Muñoz L. M., Giraldo-Forero A. F., and Martinez-Vargas J. D.. 2022. Deep matrix factorization models for estimation of missing data in a low-cost sensor network to measure air quality. Ecol. Inf. 71 (2022), 101775.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. [52] Rizkinia Mia, Faustine Nathaniel, and Okuda Masahiro. 2022. Conditional generative adversarial networks with total variation and color correction for generating indonesian face photo from sketch. Appl. Sci. 12, 19 (2022), 10006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. [53] Rumelhart David E., Hinton Geoffrey E., and Williams Ronald J.. 1985. Learning Internal Representations by Error Propagation. Technical Report. Institute for Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. [54] Samal K. Krishna Rani, Babu Korra Sathya, and Das Santos Kumar. 2021. Temporal convolutional denoising autoencoder network for air pollution prediction with missing values. Urb. Clim. 38 (2021), 100872.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. [55] Shang Chao, Palmer Aaron, Sun Jiangwen, Chen Ko-Shin, Lu Jin, and Bi Jinbo. 2017. VIGAN: Missing view imputation with generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data’17). IEEE, 766775.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. [56] Sportisse Aude, Boyer Claire, and Josse Julie. 2020. Imputation and low-rank estimation with missing not at random data. Stat. Comput. 30, 6 (2020), 16291643.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. [57] Stockie John M.. 2011. The mathematics of atmospheric dispersion modeling. SIAM Rev. 53, 2 (2011), 349372.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. [58] Tan Siyu, Wang Yuan, Yuan Qiangqiang, Zheng Li, Li Tongwen, Shen Huanfeng, and Zhang LiangPei. 2022. Reconstructing global PM2. 5 monitoring dataset from OpenAQ using a two-step spatio-temporal model based on SES-IDW and LSTM. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 3 (2022), 034014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. [59] Vincent Pascal, Larochelle Hugo, Lajoie Isabelle, Bengio Yoshua, Manzagol Pierre-Antoine, and Bottou Léon. 2010. Stacked denoising autoencoders: Learning useful representations in a deep network with a local denoising criterion. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11, 12 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. [60] Wang Feifei, Chen Tianyi, Chang Qian, Kao Yi-Wei, Li Jian, Chen Mingchih, Li Yang, and Shia Ben-Chang. 2021. Respiratory diseases are positively associated with PM2. 5 concentrations in different areas of taiwan. PLoS One 16, 4 (2021), e0249694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. [61] Wang Qiang, Kwan Mei-Po, Zhou Kan, Fan Jie, Wang Yafei, and Zhan Dongsheng. 2019. The impacts of urbanization on fine particulate matter (PM2. 5) concentrations: Empirical evidence from 135 countries worldwide. Environ. Pollut. 247 (2019), 989998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. [62] Wang Wei, Chai Yimeng, and Li Yue. 2022. GAGIN: Generative adversarial guider imputation network for missing data. Neural Comput. Appl. (2022), 114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. [63] Wong Pei-Yi, Lee Hsiao-Yun, Chen Yu-Cheng, Zeng Yu-Ting, Chern Yinq-Rong, Chen Nai-Tzu, Lung Shih-Chun Candice, Su Huey-Jen, and Wu Chih-Da. 2021. Using a land use regression model with machine learning to estimate ground level PM2. 5. Environ. Poll. 277 (2021), 116846.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. [64] Yang Ming-Chuan and Chen Meng Chang. 2023. Composite neural network: Theory and application to PM2.5 prediction. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 35, 2 (2023), 13111323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. [65] Yoon Jinsung, Jordon James, and Schaar Mihaela. 2018. Gain: Missing data imputation using generative adversarial nets. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 56895698. https://github.com/jsyoon0823/GAINGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. [66] Yoon Seongwook and Sull Sanghoon. 2020. Gamin: Generative adversarial multiple imputation network for highly missing data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 84568464.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. [67] Zhang Luo, Liu Peng, Wang Lizhe, Liu Jianbo, Song Bingze, Zhang Yuwei, He Guojin, and Zhang Hui. 2021. Improved 1-km-resolution hourly estimates of aerosol optical depth using conditional generative adversarial networks. Remote Sens. 13, 19 (2021), 3834.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. [68] Zhang Shichao and Li Jiaye. 2023. KNN classification with one-step computation. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 35, 3 (2023), 27112723.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. [69] Zhang Shichao, Li Jiaye, and Li Yangding. 2023. Reachable distance function for KNN classification. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 35, 7 (2023), 73827396.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. [70] Zhang Shichao, Li Jiaye, Zhang Wenzhen, and Qin Yongsong. 2022. Hyper-class representation of data. Neurocomputing 503 (2022), 200218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. [71] Zhang Shichao, Li Xuelong, Zong Ming, Zhu Xiaofeng, and Cheng Debo. 2017. Learning k for knn classification. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 8, 3 (2017), 119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. [72] Zhang Shichao, Li Xuelong, Zong Ming, Zhu Xiaofeng, and Wang Ruili. 2017. Efficient kNN classification with different numbers of nearest neighbors. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 29, 5 (2017), 17741785.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. [73] Zheng Yu, Yi Xiuwen, Li Ming, Li Ruiyuan, Shan Zhangqing, Chang Eric, and Li Tianrui. 2015. Forecasting fine-grained air quality based on big data. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 22672276.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. [74] Zhu Jun-Yan, Park Taesung, Isola Phillip, and Efros Alexei A.. 2017. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 22232232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. [75] Zhu Jun-Yan, Zhang Richard, Pathak Deepak, Darrell Trevor, Efros Alexei A., Wang Oliver, and Shechtman Eli. 2017. Toward multimodal image-to-image translation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 465476.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Sparse Grid Imputation Using Unpaired Imprecise Auxiliary Data: Theory and Application to PM2.5 Estimation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data
      ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data  Volume 18, Issue 3
      April 2024
      663 pages
      ISSN:1556-4681
      EISSN:1556-472X
      DOI:10.1145/3613567
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 12 January 2024
      • Online AM: 27 November 2023
      • Accepted: 23 November 2023
      • Revised: 13 November 2023
      • Received: 16 November 2022
      Published in tkdd Volume 18, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)146
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)28

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text