改进团队进步算法的近红外光谱波长筛选

doi:10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2021)10-3032-07

Abstract
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (2107 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Aiming at the problem of near-infrared spectroscopy wavelength selection, an improved team progress algorithm (iTPA) is proposed based on the team progress algorithm (TPA). The bands of molecular spectrum are arranged in descending order according to the evaluation value function obtained by modeling corresponding physical and chemical values and are divided into elite group, plain group and garbage collection group. When the new wave band selects learning behavior, if it is generated in the plain group, it needs to adjust to the direction of the elite group template; if it is generated in the elite group, its updating direction needs to be improved to adjust to the reverse direction of garbage collection group template. Unlike the elite group and the plain group, members’ evaluation value of the garbage collection group is always in a deficient state, which provides an accurate update direction for the new band generated from the elite group during the learning procedure to improve the global optimization ability of the algorithm. Through continuous iterative updating, the overall evaluation value is gradually improved, and finally, the band with the highest evaluation value is selected as the screening band. The algorithm is tested on the data set of corn starch and protein content and compared with TPA, genetic algorithm (GA), principal component analysis (PCA) and complete spectrum method. The experimental results show that the proposed algorithm can find the optimal combination of wavelengths in the whole spectrum range and explain each component’s chemical characteristics. Compared with the full spectrum, for the corn starch data set, the number of variables of iTAP was decreased from 700 to 17.55 (averaged by 50 tests), RMSEC of the model was reduced from 0.335 7 to 0.260 9, and the prediction accuracy of the correction set was improved by 22.3%. The RMSEP of the model decreased from 0.391 4 to 0.334 4, and the prediction accuracy of the prediction set increased by 14.6%; For the corn protein dataset, the number of variables decreased from 700 to 19.6 (averaged by 50 tests), RMSEC of the model was reduced from 0.147 4 to 0.101 9, and the prediction accuracy of correction set was improved by 30.1%. The RMSEP of the model decreased from 0.178 9 to 0.117 7, and the prediction accuracy of the prediction set increased by 34.2%.

Key words：Near infrared spectrum; Wavelength selection; Improved team progress algorithm; Intelligent combination optimization; Characteristic wavelength

Received: 2020-08-28 Accepted: 2020-12-12

ZTFLH:

Q657.3

Cite this article:

URL:

https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2021)10-3032-07 OR https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/Y2021/V41/I10/3032

[1] Li Cheng, Zhao Tianlun, Li Cong, et al. Food Chemistry, 2017, 221: 990.
[2] Zhang Hua, Li Changcheng, Huang Jian, et al. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 2018, 27(4): 1859.
[3] Liu Haojie, Li Minzan, Zhang Junyi, et al. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 2019, 12(5): 149.
[4] QU Fang-fang, REN Dong, HOU Jin-jian, et al(瞿芳芳, 任东, 侯金健, 等). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析), 2016, 36(2): 593.
[5] Yun Yonghuan, Li Hongdong, Wood Leslie R E, et al. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 2013, 111: 31.
[6] Tang Rongnian, Chen Xupeng, Li Chuang. Applied Spectroscopy, 2018, 72(5): 740.
[7] Deng Baichuan, Yun Yonghuan, Liang Yizeng, et al. Analyst, 2014, 139(19): 4836.
[8] ZHAO Huan, HUAN Ke-wei, ZHENG Feng, et al(赵环, 宦克为, 郑峰, 等). Journal of Changchun University of Science and Technology·Natural Science Edition(长春理工大学学报·自然科学版), 2016, 39(5): 51.
[9] Liu Haojie, Li Minzan, Zhang Junyi, et al. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 2019, 12(5): 149.
[10] HUANG Chang-yi, FAN Hai-bin, LIU Fei, et al(黄常毅, 范海滨, 刘飞, 等). Journal of Instrumental Analysis(分析测试学报), 2014, 33(5): 520.
[11] JIANG Shui-quan, SUN Tong(江水泉, 孙通). Food & Machinery(食品与机械), 2020, 36(2): 89.
[12] Zhao Xin, Zhu Qibing, Huang Min, et al. Analytical Methods, 2013, 5(18): 4811.
[13] Hu Leqian, Yin Chunling, Ma Shuai, et al. Food Analytical Methods, 2019, 12(3): 633.
[14] Mojtaba Shamsipur, Vali Zare-Shahabadi, Bahram Hemmateenejad, et al. Journal of Chemometrics, 2006, 20(3-4): 146.
[15] Chen Yuanyuan, Wang Zhibin. Molecules，2019, 24(421): 1.
[16] BAO Yi, GAO Mei-feng(包怡, 高美凤). Computer Engineering and Application(计算机工程与应用), 2010, 46(25): 171.
[17] Mokhtari Hadi. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2016, 31(1): 487.
[18] Kennard R W, Stone L A. Technometrics, 1969, 11(1): 137.