|
|
|
|
|
|
Research on a Quantitative Regression Model of the Infrared Spectrum Based on the Integrated Learning Algorithm |
JIANG Wei-wei1,LU Chang-hua1, 2,ZHANG Yu-jun2,JU Wei3,WANG Ji-zhou4,OU Chun-sheng1*,XIAO Ming-xia1 |
1. School of Computer Science and Information Engineering, Hefei University of Technology,Hefei 230009, China
2. Anhui Institute of Optics Fine Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei 230031, China
3. School of Internet, Anhui University, Hefei 230039, China
4. Department of Electronics,Hefei University,Hefei 230061,China |
|
|
Abstract In recent years, deep learning has been studied more and more in the field of data mining, and the integrated learning algorithm in deep learning has been applied to classification and quantitative regression more and more, but the application of integrated learning in the field of infrared spectrum analysis is little. In this paper, an integrated learning quantitative regression algorithm based on Blending model is proposed. GBDT algorithm, linear kernel support vector machine (LinearSVM) and radial kernel support vector machine (RBF SVM) are used as the basic learners, and the prediction results of the basic learners are fused by LinearSVM. The first derivative preprocessing was carried out for the spectral data. The prediction results of the model were analyzed and compared by using the GBDT, LinearSVM, RBF SVM and the Blending integrated learning model respectively. RBF SVM model is the best model for predicting the content of active substance and hardness, R2 is the highest, the RMSEP is the smallest, and the RPD is the largest, and the GBDT model is the worst. The R2 of tablet quality predicted by Blending model is the highest, reaching 0.837 4, while the RMSEP of RBF SVM is the lowest, 2.140 6, and the RPD of RBF SVM, 7.487 8, is the largest. For the boiling point, flash point and total aromatics of diesel oil, Blending model is the best one, which is better than the single model. For the cetane number, GBDT model and RBF SVM model are better than Blending model. For the density property, the single model and the integrated model have better prediction results, except that the R2 of LinearSVM model is 0.944 5, R2 of other models are all higher than 0.99. For the prediction of freezing point properties, RBF SVM and LinearSVM are both better than Blending model. For the prediction of viscosity, only RBF SVM is better than Blending model. It can be seen from the results that the Blending model integrates the characteristics of GBDT, LinearSVM and RBF SVM model, compared with the single model, the prediction of Blending is better or optimal. It is proved that Blending integrated learning model has strong applicability for infrared quantitative regression, and has a high prediction accuracy and generalization ability. It is of great significance for further research on the application of integrated learning algorithm in infrared quantitative regression.
|
Received: 2020-03-18
Accepted: 2020-07-20
|
|
Corresponding Authors:
OU Chun-sheng
E-mail: ouchunsheng@mail.hfut.edu.cn
|
|
[1] Hepp T, Schmid M, Gefeller O, et al. Methods of Information in Medicine, 2019, 58(1): 60.
[2] Huang Guangbin, Zhu Qinyu, Siew Chee-Kheong. 8th Brazilian Symposium on Neural Networks, 2006, 70(1-3): 489.
[3] Padarian J, Minasny B, McBratney A B. Geoderma Regional, 2018, 15: e00198.
[4] Yoav Freund, Robert E Schapire. Journal of Computer & System Sciences, 1997, 55(1): 119.
[5] Zhang Xiaokang, Liu Huanjun, Yu Shengnan, et al. Geoderma, 2018, 320: 12.
[6] Breiman L. Machine Learning, 2001, 45(1): 5.
[7] Yang Tao, Chen Weiting, Cao Guitao. Biomedical Signal Processing & Control, 2016, 28(7): 50.
[8] RONG Nian-ci, HUANG Mei-zhen(戎念慈, 黄梅珍). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析), 2020, 40(1): 168.
[9] Boucher T F, Ozanne M V, Carmosino M L, et al. Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 2015, 107: 1.
[10] Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. The Annals of Statistics, 2000, 28(2): 337. |
[1] |
BAO Hao1, 2,ZHANG Yan1, 2*. Research on Spectral Feature Band Selection Model Based on Improved Harris Hawk Optimization Algorithm[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2024, 44(01): 148-157. |
[2] |
CHENG Hui-zhu1, 2, YANG Wan-qi1, 2, LI Fu-sheng1, 2*, MA Qian1, 2, ZHAO Yan-chun1, 2. Genetic Algorithm Optimized BP Neural Network for Quantitative
Analysis of Soil Heavy Metals in XRF[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(12): 3742-3746. |
[3] |
SHEN Si-cong, ZHANG Jing-xue, CHEN Ming-hui, LI Zhi-wei, SUN Sheng-nan, YAN Xue-bing*. Estimation of Above-Ground Biomass and Chlorophyll Content of
Different Alfalfa Varieties Based on UAV Multi-Spectrum[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(12): 3847-3852. |
[4] |
BAI Xue-bing1, 2, SONG Chang-ze1, ZHANG Qian-wei1, DAI Bin-xiu1, JIN Guo-jie1, 2, LIU Wen-zheng1, TAO Yong-sheng1, 2*. Rapid and Nndestructive Dagnosis Mthod for Posphate Dficiency in “Cabernet Sauvignon” Gape Laves by Vis/NIR Sectroscopy[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(12): 3719-3725. |
[5] |
HUANG Zhao-di1, CHEN Zai-liang2, WANG Chen3, TIAN Peng2, ZHANG Hai-liang2, XIE Chao-yong2*, LIU Xue-mei4*. Comparing Different Multivariate Calibration Methods Analyses for Measurement of Soil Properties Using Visible and Short Wave-Near
Infrared Spectroscopy Combined With Machine Learning Algorithms[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(11): 3535-3540. |
[6] |
LI Wen-wen1, 2, LONG Chang-jiang1, 2, 4*, LI Shan-jun1, 2, 3, 4, CHEN Hong1, 2, 4. Detection of Mixed Pesticide Residues of Prochloraz and Imazalil in
Citrus Epidermis by Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(10): 3052-3058. |
[7] |
LIU Fei1, TAN Jia-jin1*, XIE Gu-ai2, SU Jun3, YE Jian-ren1. Early Diagnosis of Pine Wilt Disease Based on Hyperspectral Data and Needle Resistivity[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(10): 3280-3285. |
[8] |
MA Qian1, 2, YANG Wan-qi1, 2, LI Fu-sheng1, 2*, CHENG Hui-zhu1, 2, ZHAO Yan-chun1, 2. Research on Classification of Heavy Metal Pb in Honeysuckle Based on XRF and Transfer Learning[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(09): 2729-2733. |
[9] |
LÜ Shi-lei1, 2, 3, WANG Hong-wei1, LI Zhen1, 2, 3*, ZHOU Xu1, ZHAO Jing1. Hyperspectral Identification Model of Cantonese Tangerine Peel Based on BWO-SVM Algorithm[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(09): 2894-2901. |
[10] |
WANG Jun-jie1, YUAN Xi-ping2, 3, GAN Shu1, 2*, HU Lin1, ZHAO Hai-long1. Hyperspectral Identification Method of Typical Sedimentary Rocks in Lufeng Dinosaur Valley[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(09): 2855-2861. |
[11] |
ZHANG Hai-liang1, XIE Chao-yong1, TIAN Peng1, ZHAN Bai-shao1, CHEN Zai-liang1, LUO Wei1*, LIU Xue-mei2*. Measurement of Soil Organic Matter and Total Nitrogen Based on Visible/Near Infrared Spectroscopy and Data-Driven Machine Learning Method[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(07): 2226-2231. |
[12] |
LI Hao-dong1, 2, LI Ju-zi1*, CHEN Yan-lin1, HUANG Yu-jing1, Andy Hsitien Shen1*. Establishing Support Vector Machine SVM Recognition Model to Identify Jadeite Origin[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(07): 2252-2257. |
[13] |
LI Bin, HAN Zhao-yang, WANG Qiu, SUN Zhao-xiang, LIU Yan-de*. Research on Bruise Level Detection of Loquat Based on Hyperspectral
Imaging Technology[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(06): 1792-1799. |
[14] |
PAN Zhao-jie1, SUN Gen-yun1, 2*, ZHANG Ai-zhu1, FU Hang1, WANG Xin-wei3, REN Guang-wei3. Tobacco Disease Detection Model Based on Band Selection[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(04): 1023-1029. |
[15] |
LI Quan-lun1, CHEN Zheng-guang1*, JIAO Feng2. Prediction of Oil Content in Oil Shale by Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Based on Stacking Ensemble Learning[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2023, 43(04): 1030-1036. |
|
|
|
|