# Spectral Quantitative Analysis Model with Combining Wavelength Selection and Topology Structure Optimization

Authors: Qian Wang; Boyan Cai; Yajie Yu; Hui Cao
Journal: Journal of Spectroscopy
 (2016)

---

## Abstract

Spectroscopy is an efficient and widely used quantitative analysis method. In this paper, a spectral quantitative analysis model with combining wavelength selection and topology structure optimization is proposed. For the proposed method, backpropagation neural network is adopted for building the component prediction model, and the simultaneousness optimization of the wavelength selection and the topology structure of neural network is realized by nonlinear adaptive evolutionary programming (NAEP). The hybrid chromosome in binary scheme of NAEP has three parts. The first part represents the topology structure of neural network, the second part represents the selection of wavelengths in the spectral data, and the third part represents the parameters of mutation of NAEP. Two real flue gas datasets are used in the experiments. In order to present the effectiveness of the methods, the partial least squares with full spectrum, the partial least squares combined with genetic algorithm, the uninformative variable elimination method, the backpropagation neural network with full spectrum, the backpropagation neural network combined with genetic algorithm, and the proposed method are performed for building the component prediction model. Experimental results verify that the proposed method has the ability to predict more accurately and robustly as a practical spectral analysis tool.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Spectral quantitative analysis is a nondestructive and fast measurement technique and has been used in a variety of chemical fields [1–3]. The method measures the chemical composition dependent absorption of light that occurs at different wavelengths [4]. Based on the obtained wavelength signals, the spectral quantitative analysis model is built to predict the component concentrations by the regression algorithms [5].Partial least squares (PLS) is a classical multivariate regression approach for spectroscopy quantitative analysis, and it could handle the multiple correlation among the input wavelength signals [6]. Nevertheless, PLS is a linear regression algorithm essentially [7], and the nonlinearity of wavelength signals may be generated by the instrument variation and the analyte characteristics [8]. To deal with the nonlinear factors, neural network is always adopted for spectral model. Neural network could approximate any function by some simple interconnected processing units whose structure is inspired by animal brains [9, 10]. Backpropagation neural network (BPNN), as a popular neural network, uses the mean square error and the gradient descent for modifying the connection weights of the neurons [11]. The topology structure of BPNN is usually determined by the human experience [12] and may affect the model effectiveness. That may be one reason why three-layer BPNN is widely used [13–16].Moreover, the spectral instrument usually records a large number of spectral wavelength signals and the regression model is generally performed based on the obtained wavelengths. However, not all of the obtained wavelengths have the useful information, and the wavelengths without any critical information would corrupt the prediction model [17, 18]. Therefore, wavelengths selection is a vital process for spectral quantitative analysis, and the goal of wavelengths selection is to determine a subset of the obtained spectral wavelengths that could generate the smallest possible errors of the regression models [19, 20]. Some statistical techniques have been adopted for the wavelength selection, and the importance of each wavelength could be estimated according to the statistical features of the prediction model [21, 22]. Uninformative variable elimination (UVE) is proposed to eliminate the wavelengths that do not contain much information for analyte prediction than random variables [23]. Although UVE is better than the statistical wavelength selection method [24, 25], the effectiveness of UVE would be affected by the quality of the random variables and the selection result is scattered throughout the spectrum [26].BPNN could be optimized by the heuristic algorithm, and BPNN based on genetic algorithm (GA-BPNN) is proposed for determining the initial connection weights and the thresholds in a fixed topology structure [27, 28]. Furthermore, the wavelength selection could seem as a combinatorial problem; the genetic algorithm combined with PLS (GA-PLS) is presented, where GA finds the optimal subset of wavelengths associated with the PLS model [29, 30]. Because the model structure should be determined based on the number of the selected wavelengths, wavelength selection and the topology structure of BPNN would be optimized simultaneously, that is, a hybrid optimization problem. Evolutionary programming (EP) having no fixed structure outperforms with GA and is suitable for the hybrid optimization problem [31, 32]. Like GA, EP has the crossover operation and the mutation operation. However, the crossover operation of EP is limited by the chromosome form for the hybrid optimization problem, that may result in the side-effect, and EP without the crossover process would not reduce the search efficiency [33]. Furthermore, EP generally has the static mutation probability, and EP may fall into the local minima, which is similar to other searching algorithms [34].In this paper, a spectral quantitative analysis model with combining wavelength selection and topology structure optimization is proposed. For the proposed method, BPNN is adopted for building the component prediction model, and the simultaneousness optimization of the wavelength selection and the topology structure of BPNN is realized by the nonlinear adaptive evolutionary programming (NAEP). The hybrid chromosome in binary scheme of NAEP has four fragments, which represent the number of the hidden layers of BPNN, the number of neurons in each hidden layer, the selection of spectral wavelengths, and two adaptive parameters of the mutation probability of NAEP, respectively. Hence, a chromosome represents an optimization plan. NAEP only has the mutation operation for the next generation, and the mutation probability of each chromosome is updated by a nonlinear equation with considering two adaptive parameters and the fitness values. For the initial generation of NAEP, each chromosome is encoded randomly. BPNN is performed on the calibration set based on different optimization plans represented by different chromosomes. The root-mean-squares error of cross-validation (RMSECV) is the fitness function; namely, the lower the RMSECV, the better the chromosome. The better parent chromosomes would be put into the next generation. The mutation probabilities of other chromosomes are updated according to the latest evaluation results, and the chromosomes are evolved only by the mutation operation. The evolution process of NAEP terminates based on the stop condition. The chromosome with lowest fitness value is the final result; namely, the selected wavelength and the corresponding topology structure of BPNN are determined. Two real flue gas datasets are employed in the experiments. The effectiveness of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, GA-PLS, and the proposed method is compared.The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section2, The related methods are demonstrated. In Section 3, the proposed method is presented. In Section 4, the experimental results are discussed. Section 5 concludes the paper.


## 2. The Related Methods

### 2.1. PLS

For PLS,X represents the input wavelength signals, and the component Y can be expressed by(1)
Y
=
X
M
+
ε
,where M is the matrix of regression coefficients and ε is the error vector.It assumes that a small number of the latent variables are refined by linear combinations of the vectors ofX. Then (1) can be transformed to (2)
Y
=
T
C
+
ε
,
T
=
X
Q
U
T
Q
-
1
,where the matrix T is corresponding to the latent variables and C is the regression coefficients vector.ForT, X is the input matrix, Q is the matrix of weight loading representing the correlation between Y and X, and P is the matrix indicating the influence of X.


### 2.2. BPNN

BPNN connects the input layer and the output layer by one or more hidden layers. For spectroscopy quantitative analysis, the wavelengths are the signals of the input layer and the component concentration is the signal of the output layer [35]. A neuron is an activation function which is described by the tansig function, and the transfer function of the output layer is a purelin function [36]. The training process BPNN has the information forward-propagation algorithm and the error backpropagation training algorithm [11]. For the information forward-propagation algorithm, the values of each layer are calculated based on the activation function and the values of the previous layer. For the error backpropagation training algorithm, the error is propagated from the output layer to the input layer, and the weights are regulated by feedback. The modification of the weights and the offset values makes the actual output be closer to the expected output.


### 2.3. GA-BPNN

For GA-BPNN, the chromosome is encoded for the initial connection weights and the thresholds of a fixed topology structure. The individuals of the father generation are generated randomly. Then, BPNN is performed based on the information represented by each individual, and the fitness value of each individual is evaluated. Some individuals are reserved for the next generation during the selection operation and their fitness values have a great impact on the reserve probability. Some new individuals are obtained by the crossover operation and the mutation operation. The reserved individuals and the new individuals form the next generation, and the iteration procedure is running constantly until the program satisfies its requirements. After the initial weights are determined, the backpropagation training method is used to adjust the final weights of BPNN.


### 2.4. UVE

For UVE, an auxiliary matrix containing random noise is generated firstly and it has the same size as the input matrix. Then, the input matrix is combined with the auxiliary matrix to form the combination matrix, which has twice as many wavelength signals as the input matrix. PLS is performed on the combination matrix with the leave-one-out procedure. The criterion value of each column of the combination matrix is estimated by the average of its regression vector and its standard deviation. The original wavelength signal whose criterion value is not larger than a threshold is the uninformative wavelength and would be eliminated, where the threshold is set as the maximum value of the ratio of coefficient to the standard deviation of the auxiliary matrix region. Hence, UVE selects the wavelengths swiftly and practically.


### 2.5. GA-PLS

In the GA-PLS method, the chromosome is coded by a binary string, and the length of a chromosome is equal to the number of all the wavelengths. Each gene of the chromosome is 1 or 0, which indicates that the wavelength is selected or dropped. For GA-PLS, a random population including a number of chromosomes is initialized, and the PLS model is built for each chromosome, where each chromosome represents a solution of wavelength selection. The prediction precision of PLS model is adopted as the fitness values. A new population is generated by the selection, the crossover, and the mutation. The iteration process is repeated and terminates with reaching the condition, which is the number of iterations or a predefined fitness value. Then, the chromosome with the smallest fitness value is the final result of the wavelength selection.


## 2.1. PLS

For PLS,X represents the input wavelength signals, and the component Y can be expressed by(1)
Y
=
X
M
+
ε
,where M is the matrix of regression coefficients and ε is the error vector.It assumes that a small number of the latent variables are refined by linear combinations of the vectors ofX. Then (1) can be transformed to (2)
Y
=
T
C
+
ε
,
T
=
X
Q
U
T
Q
-
1
,where the matrix T is corresponding to the latent variables and C is the regression coefficients vector.ForT, X is the input matrix, Q is the matrix of weight loading representing the correlation between Y and X, and P is the matrix indicating the influence of X.


## 2.2. BPNN

BPNN connects the input layer and the output layer by one or more hidden layers. For spectroscopy quantitative analysis, the wavelengths are the signals of the input layer and the component concentration is the signal of the output layer [35]. A neuron is an activation function which is described by the tansig function, and the transfer function of the output layer is a purelin function [36]. The training process BPNN has the information forward-propagation algorithm and the error backpropagation training algorithm [11]. For the information forward-propagation algorithm, the values of each layer are calculated based on the activation function and the values of the previous layer. For the error backpropagation training algorithm, the error is propagated from the output layer to the input layer, and the weights are regulated by feedback. The modification of the weights and the offset values makes the actual output be closer to the expected output.


## 2.3. GA-BPNN

For GA-BPNN, the chromosome is encoded for the initial connection weights and the thresholds of a fixed topology structure. The individuals of the father generation are generated randomly. Then, BPNN is performed based on the information represented by each individual, and the fitness value of each individual is evaluated. Some individuals are reserved for the next generation during the selection operation and their fitness values have a great impact on the reserve probability. Some new individuals are obtained by the crossover operation and the mutation operation. The reserved individuals and the new individuals form the next generation, and the iteration procedure is running constantly until the program satisfies its requirements. After the initial weights are determined, the backpropagation training method is used to adjust the final weights of BPNN.


## 2.4. UVE

For UVE, an auxiliary matrix containing random noise is generated firstly and it has the same size as the input matrix. Then, the input matrix is combined with the auxiliary matrix to form the combination matrix, which has twice as many wavelength signals as the input matrix. PLS is performed on the combination matrix with the leave-one-out procedure. The criterion value of each column of the combination matrix is estimated by the average of its regression vector and its standard deviation. The original wavelength signal whose criterion value is not larger than a threshold is the uninformative wavelength and would be eliminated, where the threshold is set as the maximum value of the ratio of coefficient to the standard deviation of the auxiliary matrix region. Hence, UVE selects the wavelengths swiftly and practically.


## 2.5. GA-PLS

In the GA-PLS method, the chromosome is coded by a binary string, and the length of a chromosome is equal to the number of all the wavelengths. Each gene of the chromosome is 1 or 0, which indicates that the wavelength is selected or dropped. For GA-PLS, a random population including a number of chromosomes is initialized, and the PLS model is built for each chromosome, where each chromosome represents a solution of wavelength selection. The prediction precision of PLS model is adopted as the fitness values. A new population is generated by the selection, the crossover, and the mutation. The iteration process is repeated and terminates with reaching the condition, which is the number of iterations or a predefined fitness value. Then, the chromosome with the smallest fitness value is the final result of the wavelength selection.


## 3. The Proposed Method

For the proposed method, BPNN is adopted for building the component prediction model, and NAEP simultaneously optimizes the wavelength selection and the topology structure of BPNN.For the new individuals of the next generation, NAEP has not the crossover operation and only has the mutation operation in evolving process. The mutation probability (P
m) is updated by (3)
P
m
=
p
1
+
1
2
π
σ
exp
⁡
-
N
T
V
2
2
σ
2
,where p
1 and σ are two adaptive parameters and N
T
V is the normalized fitness value.The hybrid chromosome in binary scheme of NAEP has four fragments, which is shown in Figure1. Fragment 1 represents the number of the hidden layers (N
h
l). With considering the model complexity of BPNN, fragment 1 has three genes; namely, the maximum value of N
h
l is 7. Fragment 2 has twenty-eight genes and every four genes are used for representing the number of neurons in the hidden layer; namely, the maximum value of neurons in each hidden layer is 15. If N
h
l is the number of hidden layers determined by fragment 1, the values of the genes from the 4
N
h
l
+
1 position to the end position of fragment 2 are all zero. Fragment 3 is used for the wavelength selection. The length of fragment 3 is equal to the number of all the wavelengths. Each gene of fragment 3 is 1 or 0, which represents that the corresponding wavelength is selected or dropped. Fragment 4 adopts two parts for representing p
1 and σ, respectively, and each part has two genes. The binary value of part 1 is 00, 01, 10, or 11, which represents that p
1 is 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, or 0.2, respectively. In the same way, the different binary values of part 2 represent that σ is 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, or 0.65.Figure 1
The structure of the chromosome.The steps of the proposed method are described in the following.Step 1 (initialization and evaluation of fitness values).
Each chromosome is initialized randomly. BPNN is performed on the calibration set according to the information represented by each chromosome. For BPNN, the number of the hidden layers and the number of neurons in the hidden layer are determined by fragment 1 and fragment 2, respectively. The number of neurons in the input layer of BPNN is the number of selected wavelengths, which is represented by fragment 3. The number of neurons in output layer of BPNN is 1, which is the prediction value of a component concentration. The fitness function is RMSECV. The lower the RMSECV, the better the chromosome.Step 2 (selection).
The elitists strategy is adopted in the selection operation of the proposed method. The chromosomes in the parent generation are ranked based on the ascending order of the corresponding RMSECV values. The top 10% ranked chromosomes are retained for the next generation. For the elitists strategy, the quality information of population is preserved in the iteration process; namely, the search scope could be guided in the optimum direction and the convergence speed would be improved.Step 3 (mutation).
The mutation operation realizes the diversity of the population. The roulette wheel mechanism is used to perform the proportionally choice for the chromosomes being mutated. The mutation probability value of each chosen chromosome is calculated by (3), where p
1 and σ are determined by fragment 4.Step 4 (termination and output).
When the number of iterations equals the predefined limit, the proposed algorithm is stopped and the chromosome with the smallest fitness value is output.According to the best individual obtained by the proposed method, the topology structure of BPNN is determined and the wavelengths are selected. The spectral quantitative analysis model built by the optimized BPNN with the selected wavelengths would have higher accuracy. In the next section, the experiments will be performed to further verify the effectiveness of the proposed method.


## 4. Experimental Results

Two real flue gas datasets are employed in the experiments, and they are obtained during a combustion process.


### 4.1. Experimental Datasets

Dataset  1. The dataset is collected during the coal combustion process. It includes 98 samples and each sample consists of a spectrum for a mixture of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen monoxide (NO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The concentration ranges are 0–1500 ppm, 0–3000 ppm, and 0–500 ppm for SO2, NO, and NO2, respectively. The absorbance spectra are measured by the USB2000t fiber optic spectrometer. The range of spectral number is from 187.87 nm to 1026.97 nm with the resolution of 0.35 nm. Each spectrum contains 2048 wavelengths. There is some noise in wavelengths less than 200 nm. To investigate the robustness of the proposed method, these noise wavelengths are still a part of input data. The spectrum of Dataset 1 is shown in Figure 2.Figure 2
The spectrum of Dataset1.Dataset  2. The dataset is recorded during the nature gas combustion process by the GASMET DX4000 Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) gas analyzer and includes 106 samples. Each sample consists of different densities of methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2). The wavelength range is from 549.44 cm−1 to 4238.28 cm−1 with an interval of 7.72 cm−1; namely, each sample has 473 wavelength signals. The concentration ranges of CH4, CO, and CO2 are 0–0.0459 ppm, 0–0.4083 ppm, and 0–0.3818 ppm, respectively. The spectrum of Dataset 2 is shown in Figure 3.Figure 3
The spectrum of Dataset2.


### 4.2. Experimental Procedure

In the experiments, PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, GA-PLS, and the proposed method are performed on the datasets. Each dataset is separated into a calibration set and a validation set with the shutter grouping strategy [11]. A fifth of the total samples would be put into the validation dataset and the rest of the samples are put into calibration dataset. The calibration set is used to build the prediction model, and the validation set is used for evaluating the effectiveness of the model.For BPNN, three layers are used and they are the input layer, the hidden layer, and the output layer. The number of neurons in the input layer equals the number of all wavelengths. The number of neurons in the hidden layer is 15. The number of neurons in the output layer is 1; namely, the output is the component concentration. For PLS, UVE, and GA-PLS, the numbers of latent variables with the smallest RMSECV value are determined [37]. For GA-PLS, the latent variables for each individual in the population need to be redetermined at every iteration. For GA-BPNN, GA-PLS, and the proposed method, the population size is 40 and the fitness function is the RMSECV value. For GA-BPNN and GA-PLS, the crossover probability is 0.6, and the mutation probability is 0.01, which are empirically determined by experiences from the series of the GA-BPNN studies. In the experiments, 10-fold cross-validation is employed for the RMSECV value. Furthermore, the root mean-squared error of prediction (RMSEP), the squared cross-validation correlation coefficient (R
c
v
2), the squared correlation coefficient of calibration (R
c
2), the squared correlation coefficient of prediction (R
p
2), and the compression ratio (CR) would be taken into account for comparing the predictive ability of different models. CR equals (
N
t
-
N
s
)
/
N
t
×
100
%, where N
t is the number of total wavelengths and N
s is the number of the selected wavelengths.


### 4.3. Results Analysis

The experimental results of Dataset1 for SO2 are shown in Table 1. Although the CR value of the proposed method is smaller than that of UVE, the RMSEP value of the proposed method is smallest; namely, it is 40.57%, 69.74%, 34.59%, 21.66%, and 18.3% lower than that of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, and GA-PLS, respectively. UVE may ignore the wavelengths with useful information. The CR value of the proposed method is larger than that of GA-PLS. The RMSECV value of the proposed method is 55.0993 and is also the smallest. Figure 4 shows the predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for SO2. PLS, UVE, and GA-PLS have better performance than BPNN. GA-BPNN is distributed as close to the diagonal line as PLS, UVE, and GA-PLS. The proposed method has the best result and is distributed more closed to the diagonal line on both sides. Therefore, the prediction ability of the proposed method is higher than the other methods for SO2 of Dataset 1.Table 1
The experimental results of Dataset 1 for SO2.
SO2
RMSECV
RMSEP
R
c
v
2
R
p
2
CR
PLS
88.1731
67.2346
0.9600
0.9810
0
BPNN
219.4631
132.0324
0.9358
0.7939
0
GA-BPNN
66.3185
61.0886
0.9726
0.8700
0
UVE
57.9015
51.0014
0.9853
0.9860
0.8365
GA-PLS
55.1286
48.9536
0.9799
0.9855
0.5149
The proposed method
55.0993
39.9556
0.9834
0.9883
0.5509Figure 4
The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for SO2. (a) PLS. (b) BPNN. (c) GA-BPNN. (d) UVE. (e) GA-PLS. (f) The proposed method.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)The experimental results of Dataset1 for NO2 are shown in Table 2. PLS has the worst performance and its RMSEP value is 406.1298. The RMSECV value of the proposed method is smallest, and the RMSEP value of the proposed method is 68.98%, 68.92%, 40.04%, 36.69%, and 52.08% lower than that of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, and GA-PLS, respectively. Although the CR value of UVE-PLS is larger than that of the proposed method, other indicators show the proposed method has better performance. Moreover, the CR value of the proposed method is higher than that of GA-PLS. Figure 5 shows the predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for NO2. The points of PLS and BPNN spread on both sides of the diagonal line, while the points of GA-PLS, UVE, and GA-BPNN are more close to the line. The proposed method has the best performance as the points are closest to the line. Furthermore, the proposed method is the most robust of all as the points are plotted with roughly the same distance to the line. Hence, the proposed method has higher prediction precision for NO2 of Dataset 1.Table 2
The experimental results of Dataset 1 for NO2.
NO2
RMSECV
RMSEP
R
c
v
2
R
p
2
CR
PLS
424.2092
406.1298
0.4910
0.2198
0
BPNN
488.1834
405.3482
0.6651
0.6515
0
GA-BPNN
213.2712
210.1223
0.8314
0.7028
0
UVE
183.9214
198.9831
0.9001
0.7713
0.9818
GA-PLS
249.2341
262.9014
0.8199
0.6310
0.5039
The proposed method
128.5434
125.9855
0.8813
0.8854
0.5218Figure 5
The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for NO2. (a) PLS. (b) BPNN. (c) GA-BPNN. (d) UVE. (e) GA-PLS. (f) The proposed method.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)Table3 demonstrates the experimental results of Dataset 1 for NO. The RMSECV value of the proposed method is smallest. The RMSEP value of BPNN is largest. The RMSEP value of the proposed method is 33.34%, 85.76%, 8.17%, 7.20%, and 41.93% smaller than that of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, and GA-PLS, respectively. R
c
v
2 and R
p
2 of the proposed method are the largest. The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for NO is shown in Figure 6. The PLS, BPNN, and GA-PLS do not obtain the good results as many points are far away from the diagonal line. The points of GA-BPNN, UVE, and the proposed method are more close to the line. Some of points of the proposed method are on the line, and the average distance between the points and the line of the proposed method is smaller than those of GA-BPNN and UVE. Thus, the performance of the proposed method is best for the NO of Dataset 1.Table 3
Analytical results for NO.
NO
RMSECV
RMSEP
R
c
v
2
R
p
2
CR
PLS
45.2984
33.1924
0.5319
0.6906
0
BPNN
145.7634
155.3482
0.6651
0.6165
0
GA-BPNN
31.8127
24.0923
0.8545
0.7314
0
UVE
25.6659
23.8409
0.8383
0.8790
0.8545
GA-PLS
24.7231
38.1008
0.8804
0.6172
0.5059
The proposed method
21.9856
22.1235
0.9882
0.9888
0.5926Figure 6
The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for NO. (a) PLS. (b) BPNN. (c) GA-BPNN. (d) UVE. (e) GA-PLS. (f) The proposed method.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)In the same way, the analytical results for Dataset2 are discussed in the following. The experimental results of Dataset 2 for CH4 are shown in Table 4. Although the CR value of UVE is largest, the performance of UVE is worst because the RMSEP value of UVE is largest. The RMSEP value of the proposed method is 23.39%, 37.01%, 20.95%, 44.70%, and 21.68% smaller than that of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, and GA-PLS, respectively. The RMSECV value of the proposed method is also smallest. Figure 7 shows the predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for CH4. PLS, BPNN, and GA-BPNN have less points which are right located on the diagonal line. There are one or two points of UVE and GA-PLS that are not close to the line. Most of points of the proposed method are on the diagonal line. Therefore, the accuracy and the robustness of the proposed method for the CH4 of Dataset 2 are validated.Table 4
Analytical results for CH4.
CH4
RMSECV
RMSEP
R
c
v
2
R
p
2
CR
PLS
115.4345
99.5357
0.9939
0.9956
0
BPNN
101.0567
121.0567
0.9938
0.9752
0
GA-BPNN
97.2312
96.4683
0.9861
0.9844
0
UVE
119.4832
137.8875
0.9935
0.9914
0.8647
GA-PLS
81.8355
97.3635
0.9970
0.9919
0.5285
The proposed method
79.4571
76.2553
0.9978
0.9920
0.5327Figure 7
The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for CH4. (a) PLS. (b) BPNN. (c) GA-BPNN. (d) UVE. (e) GA-PLS. (f) The proposed method.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)Table5 lists the experimental results of Dataset 2 for CO. Although the RMSECV of UVE is smaller than that of the proposed method, the RMSEP of the proposed method is smallest. The RMSEP of the proposed method is 64.69%, 77.61%, 59.74%, 9.44%, and 38.89% smaller than that of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, and GA-PLS, respectively. Moreover, the CR value of the proposed method is larger than that of GA-PLS. Figure 8 shows the predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for CO. The points of PLS, BPNN, and GA-BPNN spread on both sides of the diagonal line, while the points of UVE, GA-PLS, and the proposed method are more close to the diagonal line. Furthermore, most of points of the proposed method are settled on the diagonal line. Hence, the performance of the proposed method is the best for the CO of Dataset 2.Table 5
Analytical results for CO.
CO
RMSECV
RMSEP
R
c
v
2
R
p
2
CR
PLS
78.7763
77.12223
0.9842
0.9855
0
BPNN
150.2814
121.6186
0.9315
0.8482
0
GA-BPNN
82.9801
67.6445
0.9732
0.9581
0
UVE
29.0501
30.0698
0.9982
0.9976
0.8879
GA-PLS
41.4748
44.5643
0.9956
0.9950
0.5497
The proposed method
29.1491
27.2319
0.9993
0.9975
0.5530Figure 8
The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for CO. (a) PLS. (b) BPNN. (c) GA-BPNN. (d) UVE. (e) GA-PLS. (f) The proposed method.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)The experimental results of Dataset2 for CO2 are shown in Table 6. The RMSEP of BPNN equals 57.7472 which is largest. The RMSEP of the proposed method is 36.17%, 38.68%, 36.66%, 26.08%, and 17.32% smaller than that of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, and GA-PLS, respectively. Figure 9 shows the predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for CO2. The points of BPNN, GA-BPNN, and UVE are close to the diagonal line, and some points of PLS and GA-PLS are directly on the line. Almost all the points of the proposed method stay right on the line. Therefore, the prediction capability of the proposed method is the best for CO2 of Dataset 2.Table 6
Analytical results for CO2.
CO2
RMSECV
RMSEP
R
c
v
2
R
p
2
CR
PLS
41.5959
55.4754
0.9971
0.9981
0
BPNN
55.8712
57.7472
0.9957
0.9895
0
GA-BPNN
51.1870
55.9048
0.9961
0.9901
0
UVE
45.4300
47.9081
0.9963
0.9910
0.9345
GA-PLS
43.5677
42.8292
0.9959
0.9982
0.5137
The proposed method
41.9192
35.4125
0.9980
0.9991
0.5370Figure 9
The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for CO2. (a) PLS. (b) BPNN. (c) GA-BPNN. (d) UVE. (e) GA-PLS. (f) The proposed method.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)In summary, the experimental results verify that the proposed method is successfully employed for the spectral quantitative analysis of Dataset1 and Dataset 2 with higher accuracy.


## 4.1. Experimental Datasets

Dataset  1. The dataset is collected during the coal combustion process. It includes 98 samples and each sample consists of a spectrum for a mixture of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen monoxide (NO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The concentration ranges are 0–1500 ppm, 0–3000 ppm, and 0–500 ppm for SO2, NO, and NO2, respectively. The absorbance spectra are measured by the USB2000t fiber optic spectrometer. The range of spectral number is from 187.87 nm to 1026.97 nm with the resolution of 0.35 nm. Each spectrum contains 2048 wavelengths. There is some noise in wavelengths less than 200 nm. To investigate the robustness of the proposed method, these noise wavelengths are still a part of input data. The spectrum of Dataset 1 is shown in Figure 2.Figure 2
The spectrum of Dataset1.Dataset  2. The dataset is recorded during the nature gas combustion process by the GASMET DX4000 Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) gas analyzer and includes 106 samples. Each sample consists of different densities of methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2). The wavelength range is from 549.44 cm−1 to 4238.28 cm−1 with an interval of 7.72 cm−1; namely, each sample has 473 wavelength signals. The concentration ranges of CH4, CO, and CO2 are 0–0.0459 ppm, 0–0.4083 ppm, and 0–0.3818 ppm, respectively. The spectrum of Dataset 2 is shown in Figure 3.Figure 3
The spectrum of Dataset2.


## 4.2. Experimental Procedure

In the experiments, PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, GA-PLS, and the proposed method are performed on the datasets. Each dataset is separated into a calibration set and a validation set with the shutter grouping strategy [11]. A fifth of the total samples would be put into the validation dataset and the rest of the samples are put into calibration dataset. The calibration set is used to build the prediction model, and the validation set is used for evaluating the effectiveness of the model.For BPNN, three layers are used and they are the input layer, the hidden layer, and the output layer. The number of neurons in the input layer equals the number of all wavelengths. The number of neurons in the hidden layer is 15. The number of neurons in the output layer is 1; namely, the output is the component concentration. For PLS, UVE, and GA-PLS, the numbers of latent variables with the smallest RMSECV value are determined [37]. For GA-PLS, the latent variables for each individual in the population need to be redetermined at every iteration. For GA-BPNN, GA-PLS, and the proposed method, the population size is 40 and the fitness function is the RMSECV value. For GA-BPNN and GA-PLS, the crossover probability is 0.6, and the mutation probability is 0.01, which are empirically determined by experiences from the series of the GA-BPNN studies. In the experiments, 10-fold cross-validation is employed for the RMSECV value. Furthermore, the root mean-squared error of prediction (RMSEP), the squared cross-validation correlation coefficient (R
c
v
2), the squared correlation coefficient of calibration (R
c
2), the squared correlation coefficient of prediction (R
p
2), and the compression ratio (CR) would be taken into account for comparing the predictive ability of different models. CR equals (
N
t
-
N
s
)
/
N
t
×
100
%, where N
t is the number of total wavelengths and N
s is the number of the selected wavelengths.


## 4.3. Results Analysis

The experimental results of Dataset1 for SO2 are shown in Table 1. Although the CR value of the proposed method is smaller than that of UVE, the RMSEP value of the proposed method is smallest; namely, it is 40.57%, 69.74%, 34.59%, 21.66%, and 18.3% lower than that of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, and GA-PLS, respectively. UVE may ignore the wavelengths with useful information. The CR value of the proposed method is larger than that of GA-PLS. The RMSECV value of the proposed method is 55.0993 and is also the smallest. Figure 4 shows the predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for SO2. PLS, UVE, and GA-PLS have better performance than BPNN. GA-BPNN is distributed as close to the diagonal line as PLS, UVE, and GA-PLS. The proposed method has the best result and is distributed more closed to the diagonal line on both sides. Therefore, the prediction ability of the proposed method is higher than the other methods for SO2 of Dataset 1.Table 1
The experimental results of Dataset 1 for SO2.
SO2
RMSECV
RMSEP
R
c
v
2
R
p
2
CR
PLS
88.1731
67.2346
0.9600
0.9810
0
BPNN
219.4631
132.0324
0.9358
0.7939
0
GA-BPNN
66.3185
61.0886
0.9726
0.8700
0
UVE
57.9015
51.0014
0.9853
0.9860
0.8365
GA-PLS
55.1286
48.9536
0.9799
0.9855
0.5149
The proposed method
55.0993
39.9556
0.9834
0.9883
0.5509Figure 4
The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for SO2. (a) PLS. (b) BPNN. (c) GA-BPNN. (d) UVE. (e) GA-PLS. (f) The proposed method.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)The experimental results of Dataset1 for NO2 are shown in Table 2. PLS has the worst performance and its RMSEP value is 406.1298. The RMSECV value of the proposed method is smallest, and the RMSEP value of the proposed method is 68.98%, 68.92%, 40.04%, 36.69%, and 52.08% lower than that of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, and GA-PLS, respectively. Although the CR value of UVE-PLS is larger than that of the proposed method, other indicators show the proposed method has better performance. Moreover, the CR value of the proposed method is higher than that of GA-PLS. Figure 5 shows the predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for NO2. The points of PLS and BPNN spread on both sides of the diagonal line, while the points of GA-PLS, UVE, and GA-BPNN are more close to the line. The proposed method has the best performance as the points are closest to the line. Furthermore, the proposed method is the most robust of all as the points are plotted with roughly the same distance to the line. Hence, the proposed method has higher prediction precision for NO2 of Dataset 1.Table 2
The experimental results of Dataset 1 for NO2.
NO2
RMSECV
RMSEP
R
c
v
2
R
p
2
CR
PLS
424.2092
406.1298
0.4910
0.2198
0
BPNN
488.1834
405.3482
0.6651
0.6515
0
GA-BPNN
213.2712
210.1223
0.8314
0.7028
0
UVE
183.9214
198.9831
0.9001
0.7713
0.9818
GA-PLS
249.2341
262.9014
0.8199
0.6310
0.5039
The proposed method
128.5434
125.9855
0.8813
0.8854
0.5218Figure 5
The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for NO2. (a) PLS. (b) BPNN. (c) GA-BPNN. (d) UVE. (e) GA-PLS. (f) The proposed method.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)Table3 demonstrates the experimental results of Dataset 1 for NO. The RMSECV value of the proposed method is smallest. The RMSEP value of BPNN is largest. The RMSEP value of the proposed method is 33.34%, 85.76%, 8.17%, 7.20%, and 41.93% smaller than that of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, and GA-PLS, respectively. R
c
v
2 and R
p
2 of the proposed method are the largest. The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for NO is shown in Figure 6. The PLS, BPNN, and GA-PLS do not obtain the good results as many points are far away from the diagonal line. The points of GA-BPNN, UVE, and the proposed method are more close to the line. Some of points of the proposed method are on the line, and the average distance between the points and the line of the proposed method is smaller than those of GA-BPNN and UVE. Thus, the performance of the proposed method is best for the NO of Dataset 1.Table 3
Analytical results for NO.
NO
RMSECV
RMSEP
R
c
v
2
R
p
2
CR
PLS
45.2984
33.1924
0.5319
0.6906
0
BPNN
145.7634
155.3482
0.6651
0.6165
0
GA-BPNN
31.8127
24.0923
0.8545
0.7314
0
UVE
25.6659
23.8409
0.8383
0.8790
0.8545
GA-PLS
24.7231
38.1008
0.8804
0.6172
0.5059
The proposed method
21.9856
22.1235
0.9882
0.9888
0.5926Figure 6
The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for NO. (a) PLS. (b) BPNN. (c) GA-BPNN. (d) UVE. (e) GA-PLS. (f) The proposed method.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)In the same way, the analytical results for Dataset2 are discussed in the following. The experimental results of Dataset 2 for CH4 are shown in Table 4. Although the CR value of UVE is largest, the performance of UVE is worst because the RMSEP value of UVE is largest. The RMSEP value of the proposed method is 23.39%, 37.01%, 20.95%, 44.70%, and 21.68% smaller than that of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, and GA-PLS, respectively. The RMSECV value of the proposed method is also smallest. Figure 7 shows the predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for CH4. PLS, BPNN, and GA-BPNN have less points which are right located on the diagonal line. There are one or two points of UVE and GA-PLS that are not close to the line. Most of points of the proposed method are on the diagonal line. Therefore, the accuracy and the robustness of the proposed method for the CH4 of Dataset 2 are validated.Table 4
Analytical results for CH4.
CH4
RMSECV
RMSEP
R
c
v
2
R
p
2
CR
PLS
115.4345
99.5357
0.9939
0.9956
0
BPNN
101.0567
121.0567
0.9938
0.9752
0
GA-BPNN
97.2312
96.4683
0.9861
0.9844
0
UVE
119.4832
137.8875
0.9935
0.9914
0.8647
GA-PLS
81.8355
97.3635
0.9970
0.9919
0.5285
The proposed method
79.4571
76.2553
0.9978
0.9920
0.5327Figure 7
The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for CH4. (a) PLS. (b) BPNN. (c) GA-BPNN. (d) UVE. (e) GA-PLS. (f) The proposed method.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)Table5 lists the experimental results of Dataset 2 for CO. Although the RMSECV of UVE is smaller than that of the proposed method, the RMSEP of the proposed method is smallest. The RMSEP of the proposed method is 64.69%, 77.61%, 59.74%, 9.44%, and 38.89% smaller than that of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, and GA-PLS, respectively. Moreover, the CR value of the proposed method is larger than that of GA-PLS. Figure 8 shows the predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for CO. The points of PLS, BPNN, and GA-BPNN spread on both sides of the diagonal line, while the points of UVE, GA-PLS, and the proposed method are more close to the diagonal line. Furthermore, most of points of the proposed method are settled on the diagonal line. Hence, the performance of the proposed method is the best for the CO of Dataset 2.Table 5
Analytical results for CO.
CO
RMSECV
RMSEP
R
c
v
2
R
p
2
CR
PLS
78.7763
77.12223
0.9842
0.9855
0
BPNN
150.2814
121.6186
0.9315
0.8482
0
GA-BPNN
82.9801
67.6445
0.9732
0.9581
0
UVE
29.0501
30.0698
0.9982
0.9976
0.8879
GA-PLS
41.4748
44.5643
0.9956
0.9950
0.5497
The proposed method
29.1491
27.2319
0.9993
0.9975
0.5530Figure 8
The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for CO. (a) PLS. (b) BPNN. (c) GA-BPNN. (d) UVE. (e) GA-PLS. (f) The proposed method.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)The experimental results of Dataset2 for CO2 are shown in Table 6. The RMSEP of BPNN equals 57.7472 which is largest. The RMSEP of the proposed method is 36.17%, 38.68%, 36.66%, 26.08%, and 17.32% smaller than that of PLS, BPNN, GA-BPNN, UVE, and GA-PLS, respectively. Figure 9 shows the predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for CO2. The points of BPNN, GA-BPNN, and UVE are close to the diagonal line, and some points of PLS and GA-PLS are directly on the line. Almost all the points of the proposed method stay right on the line. Therefore, the prediction capability of the proposed method is the best for CO2 of Dataset 2.Table 6
Analytical results for CO2.
CO2
RMSECV
RMSEP
R
c
v
2
R
p
2
CR
PLS
41.5959
55.4754
0.9971
0.9981
0
BPNN
55.8712
57.7472
0.9957
0.9895
0
GA-BPNN
51.1870
55.9048
0.9961
0.9901
0
UVE
45.4300
47.9081
0.9963
0.9910
0.9345
GA-PLS
43.5677
42.8292
0.9959
0.9982
0.5137
The proposed method
41.9192
35.4125
0.9980
0.9991
0.5370Figure 9
The predicted value versus the measured value scatter diagram of different methods for CO2. (a) PLS. (b) BPNN. (c) GA-BPNN. (d) UVE. (e) GA-PLS. (f) The proposed method.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)In summary, the experimental results verify that the proposed method is successfully employed for the spectral quantitative analysis of Dataset1 and Dataset 2 with higher accuracy.


## 5. Conclusions

This paper proposes a spectral quantitative analysis model with combining wavelength selection and topology structure optimization. The proposed method has some advantages as follows. First, the proposed method can be used for the spectral quantitative analysis. Second, the proposed method realizes the simultaneousness optimization of the wavelength selection and the topology structure. Third, the proposed method only has the mutation operation which can simplify the iteration procedure without decreasing the precision. The experiments results verify that the proposed method has higher predicative ability for spectral quantitative analysis and can be applied to different types of spectra.



---

*Source: 5616503-2016-10-19.xml*