AeroChem: Closed-loop Physics-Informed State Space Modeling for Long-term Chemically-Reactive Air Quality Forecasting--Extended Version
Authors: Kien Le Trung, Tung Kieu, Dinh Duc Nha Nguyen, Cuong Do, Bin Yang, Phi Long Nguyen
Organizations: VinUniversity Vietnam · Aalborg University Denmark · CECS, VinUniversity Vietnam · East China Normal University China · SEEE, Hanoi University of Industry Vietnam
Accurate long-term air quality forecasting is challenging due to long-range transport, meteorological variability, and nonlinear chemical reactions underlying secondary pollutant formation. Purely data-driven models often suffer from long-horizon drift and lack physical consistency, while existing physics-informed approaches commonly follow open-loop designs that fuse neural and physical components only at the output level. We propose AeroChem, a closed-loop physics-informed state space framework for chemically reactive air quality forecasting. AeroChem adopts a two-branch co-correction design: a UDE-based process branch provides a structured but imperfect physical prior, while a Mamba-based virtual measurement branch captures long-range temporal context and produces probabilistic virtual observations. Neural Kalman Fusion couples the two branches by correcting the latent physical state at each forecasting step and feeding the posterior state back into the simulator, reducing long-horizon drift. We further introduce HanoiAir, a real-world dataset integrating pollutant concentrations, meteorology, and emission inventories. Experiments on HanoiAir and a public benchmark show that AeroChem improves long-horizon stability and sudden-change forecasting.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Impacts on Air Quality.
Figure 2: AeroChem architecture. A S-Mamba-based virtual measurement branch generates adaptive virtual observations, while a UDE-based process branch models transport and meteorology-gated neural reactions as a structured physical prior. Neural Kalman Fusion couples the two branches through a learnable correction term, producing a posterior state that is recursively fed back into the UDE. This closed-loop neural state correction allows virtual measurements and physics-informed dynamics to correct each other, mitigating long-horizon drift.
Methods
3 Days
6 Days
9 Days
Sudden Change
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
HA
35.20 ± 0.05
51.50 ± 0.07
0.65 ± 0.001
37.80 ± 0.06
54.20 ± 0.08
0.68 ± 0.002
40.50 ± 0.07
58.10 ± 0.10
0.71 ± 0.002
55.40 ± 0.10
75.20 ± 0.14
0.75 ± 0.003
VAR
33.80 ± 0.08
49.20 ± 0.10
0.62 ± 0.002
36.50 ± 0.09
52.40 ± 0.13
0.66 ± 0.003
39.20 ± 0.11
56.50 ± 0.16
0.69 ± 0.003
53.10 ± 0.16
72.40 ± 0.22
0.72 ± 0.004
LatentODE
26.50 ± 0.15
42.10 ± 0.21
0.55 ± 0.004
28.20 ± 0.18
45.40 ± 0.25
0.57 ± 0.005
31.60 ± 0.22
49.20 ± 0.30
0.61 ± 0.006
48.40 ± 0.36
65.10 ± 0.49
0.65 ± 0.009
ODE-LSTM
27.10 ± 0.16
43.50 ± 0.22
0.56 ± 0.004
29.45 ± 0.19
46.80 ± 0.26
0.59 ± 0.005
32.80 ± 0.23
50.15 ± 0.31
0.62 ± 0.006
49.80 ± 0.38
67.30 ± 0.51
0.67 ± 0.010
Air-DualODE
23.04 ± 0.14
38.44 ± 0.19
0.52 ± 0.003
24.50 ± 0.17
41.60 ± 0.23
0.54 ± 0.004
25.20 ± 0.20
42.80 ± 0.27
0.59 ± 0.005
39.24 ± 0.32
53.30 ± 0.43
0.55 ± 0.008
Table 1: Performance comparison on the KnowAir dataset. The best results are highlighted in bold , and the second-best results are underlined . Mean ± std over 5 runs.
Methods
3 Days
6 Days
9 Days
Sudden Change
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
HA
55.20 ± 0.10
78.50 ± 0.14
0.85 ± 0.002
58.40 ± 0.12
82.10 ± 0.16
0.88 ± 0.003
62.10 ± 0.14
86.50 ± 0.20
0.92 ± 0.003
75.40 ± 0.22
105.20 ± 0.30
0.89 ± 0.005
VAR
52.80 ± 0.13
75.20 ± 0.18
0.82 ± 0.003
56.50 ± 0.15
79.40 ± 0.21
0.85 ± 0.003
60.20 ± 0.18
84.80 ± 0.25
0.88 ± 0.004
72.10 ± 0.28
100.40 ± 0.38
0.86 ± 0.006
LatentODE
46.50 ± 0.30
68.10 ± 0.42
0.80 ± 0.006
49.20 ± 0.36
71.40 ± 0.50
0.83 ± 0.007
52.60 ± 0.42
75.20 ± 0.58
0.86 ± 0.008
74.40 ± 0.65
98.10 ± 0.88
0.85 ± 0.012
ODE-LSTM
47.10 ± 0.32
69.50 ± 0.45
0.81 ± 0.006
50.45 ± 0.38
72.80 ± 0.52
0.84 ± 0.007
54.80 ± 0.45
78.15 ± 0.62
0.87 ± 0.008
75.80 ± 0.70
101.30 ± 0.94
0.86 ± 0.012
Air-DualODE
42.04 ± 0.28
64.41 ± 0.40
0.78 ± 0.005
45.50 ± 0.34
67.60 ± 0.46
0.82 ± 0.006
48.20 ± 0.40
71.80 ± 0.54
0.86 ± 0.007
72.24 ± 0.58
93.30 ± 0.78
0.83 ± 0.010
Table 2: Performance comparison on HanoiAir dataset. The best results are highlighted in bold , and the second-best results are underlined . Mean ± std over 5 runs.
Method
HanoiAir
KnowAir
3 Days
9 Days
3 Days
9 Days
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
AeroChem
42.74
63.11
0.78
46.80
68.34
0.81
21.95
37.20
0.50
24.08
39.34
0.54
Physical Mechanisms
w/o Diffusion ( AeroChem -D )
44.31
65.25
0.80
48.37
70.48
0.83
23.52
39.34
0.52
25.65
41.48
0.56
w/o Advection ( AeroChem -A )
42.81
66.34
0.78
48.80
69.64
0.84
23.95
40.02
0.52
24.98
40.74
0.58
Table 3: Ablation Study: Effect of Physical Mechanisms and Models Design.
Figure 3: Performance across forecast horizons.
Figure 4: Sensitivity analysis on KnowAir dataset. The dashed vertical lines indicate the default hyperparameters used in the full model ( λ=0.1,d=96,dt=1.0 ), which consistently correspond to the optimal performance regions (lowest error).
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Params
FLOPs
S-Mamba
250 K
5.6 G
AirPhyNet
120 K
0.8 G
Air-DualODE
100 K
2.0 G
AeroChem (Ours)
550 K
9 G
Appendix
Table A.1: Computational complexity comparison.
Variable
Unit
% Missing
Q1
Median
Mean
Q3
SD
Max
PM2.5
μ g/m 3
20.8
34.8
58.9
82.6
111.7
86.5
1177.2
PM10
μ g/m 3
21.6
47.6
79.4
121.9
159.5
108.8
1356.1
O3
μ g/m 3
16.3
27.9
50.6
58.3
81.4
38.9
243.1
Relative hum.
%
5.7
68.1
81.0
78.0
90.2
14.1
100
Pressure
hPa
5.5
1002.5
1008.1
1008.5
1014.5
7.8
1036.3
Solar rad.
W/m 2
7.5
0.0
0.0
147.0
218.0
229.0
1336.1
Appendix
Table A.2: Descriptive statistics
Figure A.1: The training curves on KnowAir datasets experimentally demonstrate that AeroChem achieves convergence.
Figure A.2: Visualization results of AeroChem under sudden change on Hanoi dataset.
Figure A.3: Kernel Density Estimation of the learned Kinetics Gate activation versus ground-truth solar radiation. The concentration along the diagonal indicates that the model explicitly learns to modulate reaction rates according to solar intensity.
Figure A.4 : Photochemical dynamics: inverse correlation between O 3 formation and NO 2 depletion.
Figure A.5 : Meteorological catalyst: solar radiation intensity drives the photochemical reaction.
Figure A.6: Visualization of predicted PM 2.5 concentrations under advection. The heatmap shows PM 2.5 concentration, while arrows represent wind direction.
Methods
3 Days
6 Days
9 Days
CRPS
CRPS sum
PICP
CRPS
CRPS sum
PICP
CRPS
CRPS sum
PICP
VAR
26.14 ± 0.05
4582.7 ± 3.2
0.974 ± 0.001
28.07 ± 0.06
4905.4 ± 4.1
0.978 ± 0.001
30.42 ± 0.08
5306.8 ± 5.7
0.981 ± 0.001
LatentODE
21.38 ± 0.18
3782.6 ± 22.4
0.886 ± 0.008
22.95 ± 0.24
4054.1 ± 28.7
0.871 ± 0.011
24.71 ± 0.31
4365.3 ± 35.2
0.852 ± 0.013
DLinear
17.74 ± 0.10
3144.9 ± 7.3
0.938 ± 0.002
17.96 ± 0.11
3207.2 ± 5.3
0.933 ± 0.005
18.03 ± 0.04
3208.4 ± 9.6
0.930 ± 0.003
PatchTST
18.23 ± 0.04
3216.8 ± 9.4
0.939 ± 0.002
18.50 ± 0.09
3291.9 ± 13.9
0.935 ± 0.001
18.66 ± 0.14
3293.2 ± 19.5
0.933 ± 0.004
TimeMoE
16.15 ± 0.07
2785.3 ± 8.5
0.951 ± 0.002
16.38 ± 0.09
2842.1 ± 11.2
0.947 ± 0.003
16.52 ± 0.11
2889.6 ± 14.6
0.944 ± 0.004
Appendix
Table A.3: Probabilistic forecasting performance comparison on KnowAir . The best results are highlighted in bold . Mean ± std over 5 runs.
Emission Input
3-Day MAE
9-Day MAE
Full
42.74
46.80
Degraded (no downscaling)
43.31
47.03
Removed emissions
43.86
48.15
Appendix
Table A.4 : Ablation study on temporal downscaling of emission data (HanoiAir).
Methods
9 Days
Runtime
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
Training
Inference
DLinear
29.07
38.92
0.49
5h
3m
TimeMoE
28.83
38.64
0.52
30h
5m
PatchTST
28.97
38.06
0.50
10h
5m
AirDualODE
30.58
38.80
0.55
15h
3m
AeroChem (Ours)
28.53
38.12
0.53
20h
3m
Appendix
Table A.5 : Performance comparison on O 3 prediction (9-day horizon), including runtime.
Methods
3 Days
6 Days
9 Days
Sudden Change
Runtime
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
MAE
RMSE
SMAPE
Train
Infer
MDSTNet [ 33 ]
23.27
34.98
0.51
23.52
34.98
0.53
24.77
35.35
0.55
34.12
48.22
0.51
72h
5m
FuXi-Air [ 5 ]
27.90
39.23
0.55
28.56
41.97
0.66
29.28
43.74
0.67
36.56
50.43
0.55
-
3m
AeroChem (Ours)
21.95
37.20
0.50
23.00
38.80
0.52
24.08
39.34
0.54
34.50
49.50
0.52
32h
2m
Appendix
Table A.6 : Comparison with chemistry-aware baselines.
Model
Future Meteo
3-Day MAE
9-Day MAE
DLinear
No
22.57
24.50
DLinear
Yes
22.31
24.12
PatchTST
No
22.69
25.25
PatchTST
Yes
22.45
24.78
TimeMoE
No
21.68
25.32
TimeMoE
Yes
21.42
24.81
Appendix
Table A.7 : Effect of future meteorological inputs.
Configuration
KnowAir 9-Day MAE
Open-loop UDE ( AeroChem -K)
35.50
Standard Kalman (Gaussian innovation)
24.44
Neural Kalman (learned correction)
24.08
Appendix
Table A.8 : Effect of closed-loop neural state configurations.
Setting (MAE)
AeroChem
Best baseline
Welch t (df)
p (2-sided)
KnowAir 3d
21.95±0.06
Fredformer 21.45±0.08
11.2 ( 7.4 )
7×10−6
KnowAir 6d
23.00±0.08
TimeMoE 23.15±0.11
2.5 ( 7.3 )
0.042
KnowAir 9d
24.08±0.10
DLinear 24.50±0.12
6.0 ( 7.7 )
4×10−4
KnowAir Sudden
34.50±0.18
TimeMoE 36.54±0.21
16.5 ( 7.8 )
2×10−7
HanoiAir 3d
42.74±0.10
Fredformer 41.60±0.16
13.5 ( 6.7 )
4×10−6
HanoiAir 6d
44.50±0.13
TimeMoE 44.15±0.21
3.2 ( 6.7 )
0.017
Appendix
Table A.9: Statistical significance tests comparing AeroChem against the strongest baseline in each setting. Values are reported as mean ± standard deviation. Welch’s t -test is conducted over five independent runs. The reported p -values are unadjusted two-sided values.
Setting
Δ nMAE vs. best baseline
Δ nRMSE vs. best baseline
KnowAir 3d
+2.33% (Fredformer)
0.00% (tie, TimeMoE)
KnowAir 6d
−0.65% (TimeMoE)
−0.39% (TimeMoE)
KnowAir 9d
−1.71% (DLinear)
−2.02% (TimeMoE)
KnowAir Sudden
−5.58% (TimeMoE)
+0.77% (TimeMoE)
HanoiAir 3d
+2.74% (Fredformer)
−1.08% (TimeMoE)
HanoiAir 6d
+0.79% (TimeMoE)
−0.90% (S-Mamba)
Appendix
Table A.10: Relative changes in normalized MAE and normalized RMSE of AeroChem with respect to the strongest baseline in each setting.
Accurate air quality forecasting is crucial for protecting public health and guiding environmental policy, yet it remains challenging due to nonlinear spatiotemporal dynamics, wind-driven transport, and distribution shifts across regions. Physics-based models are interpretable but computationally expensive and often rely on restrictive assumptions, whereas purely data-driven models can be accurate but may lack robustness and calibrated uncertainty. To address these limitations, we propose Neural Dynamic Diffusion-Advection Fields (NeuroDDAF), a physics-informed forecasting framework that unifies neural representation learning with open-system transport modeling. NeuroDDAF integrates (i) a GRU-Graph Attention encoder to capture temporal dynamics and wind-aware spatial interactions, (ii) a Fourier-domain diffusion-advection module with learnable residuals, (iii) a wind-modulated latent Neural ODE to model continuous-time evolution under time-varying connectivity, and (iv) an evidential fusion mechanism that adaptively combines physics-guided and neural forecasts while quantifying uncertainty. Experiments on four urban datasets (Beijing, Shenzhen, Tianjin, and Ancona) across 1-3 day horizons show that NeuroDDAF consistently outperforms strong baselines, including AirPhyNet, achieving up to 9.7% reduction in RMSE and 9.4% reduction in MAE on long-term forecasts. On the Beijing dataset, NeuroDDAF attains an RMSE of 41.63 μg/m3 for 1-day prediction and 48.88 μg/m3 for 3-day prediction, representing the best performance among all compared methods. In addition, NeuroDDAF improves cross-city generalization and yields well-calibrated uncertainty estimates, as confirmed by ensemble variance analysis and case studies under varying wind conditions.
Accurate air quality forecasting is essential for public health and urban environmental management, but remains challenging because pollutant channels differ in periodicity and distribution drift, while their concentration trajectories contain both multi-scale dependencies and rapid changes. Recent methods have improved spatial dependency learning and meteorological covariate modeling. However, pollutant channels are still passed through the same normalization rule and temporal backbone, using a shared latent representation for channel-specific distributions and changes at different rates. To address this limitation, we propose AirFlow, a pollutant-aware dual-stream framework that operates on station multivariate observations without additional graph propagation or predefined signal decomposition. Specifically, AirFlow designs two novel blocks: (1) a statistic-guided normalization routing mechanism that selects a normalization path for each pollutant according to its 24-hour autocorrelation and distribution drift; and (2) a hierarchical dual-stream state model that combines multi-scale state space propagation with learnable response coefficients, where gated bidirectional cross-attention exchanges information and adaptively fuses the resulting representations. Experiments on real-world data from multiple cities show that AirFlow achieves the best performance in 34 of 36 metrics comparisons, with reductions of up to 11.11% root mean square error over the state-of-the-art baseline. AirFlow also requires only 0.0483M parameters and 0.0215G FLOPs, achieving high forecasting accuracy with low computational overhead.
Fan Yang, Nan Chen, Yijie Dong +2
School of Software Technology, Zhejiang University Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310000, China
Accurate air quality forecasting is essential for public health and environmental sustainability, but remains challenging due to the complex pollutant dynamics. Existing deep learning methods often model pollutant dynamics as an instantaneous process, overlooking the intrinsic delays in pollutant propagation. Thus, we propose AirDDE, the first neural delay differential equation framework in this task that integrates delay modeling into a continuous-time pollutant evolution under physical guidance. Specifically, two novel components are introduced: (1) a memory-augmented attention module that retrieves globally and locally historical features, which can adaptively capture delay effects modulated by multifactor data; and (2) a physics-guided delay evolving function, grounded in the diffusion-advection equation, that models diffusion, delayed advection, and source/sink terms, which can capture delay-aware pollutant accumulation patterns with physical plausibility. Extensive experiments on three real-world datasets demonstrate that AirDDE achieves the state-of-the-art forecasting performance with an average MAE reduction of 8.79% over the best baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/w2obin/airdde-aaai.
Binqing Wu, Zongjiang Shang, Shiyu Liu +3
State Key Laboratory of Blockchain and Data Security, Zhejiang University · College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University · State Key Laboratory of Clean Energy Utilization, Zhejiang University