Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
T
Y = TQ + F
where T = [t1 , t 2 t h ] is the score matrix, t i is the latent
I. INTRODUCTION
As a data-driven method, partial least squares (PLS)
method has been widely used in the modeling, monitoring and
fault diagnosing of industrial processes and it has shown good
performance [1]-[3]. In a complex multi-variable system, the
PLS method can extract the information to build the
relationship between input and output variables [4]. With the
developed relationship or model, new output variables can be
predicted when the input variables are known. With this
speciality of PLS, it is important in predicting and controlling
the quality of products.
In this paper, the PLS method is analyzed from the point
of space decomposition. It is indicated that there is still some
information which is relevant to the output variables in the
input variables residual, after the input space and output space
are decomposed in PLS [5]. And the left information will
affect the accuracy of the model and prediction. In this paper,
the relationship between residual subspace and output
variables is gotten from the perspective of projection by
analyzing the residual subspace. Then a novel modified PLS
method is proposed. Compared with conventional PLS
method, the modified method can curve a more accurate
relationship between input and output variables, improving the
precision and prediction power of the model. In the simulation
study, the penicillin fermentation process is employed to test
the effectiveness of the proposed method. And the PLS
method is also applied in the penicillin fermentation process.
The simulation study results show that the proposed modified
PLS method can predict a more accurate output result than the
PLS method.
The remaining sections of this paper are organized as
follows. Section II analyses correlation between residual and
quality variables and then presents the modified PLS
ri = w i , ri = (I m w j pTj )w i , i > 1
(3)
j =1
1383
(4)
R = W ( P T W ) 1
(5)
P T R = R T P = WT W = I h
(6)
From the computation shown above, it can be seen that
decomposition of X space is determined by P and R . So
that how Y influence decomposition of X space can been
reflected by angle between pi and ri . For every dimension
T
r p =1
(7)
so that cosine of angel between p and r is calculated as
follow:
cos (r, p) = 1 r p
(8)
Step
r= r
(9)
i =1
and
Table. I
NIPALS algorithm
NIPALS
w = XT u
t = Xw , t t / t
c = YT t
u = Yc , u u / u
X X tt T X
Step2
i2 = 1
(10)
i =1
Y Y tt T Y
Then,
h
p = XT t / t T t = XT Xr / t T t = i i ai
r i i 2
i =1
(11)
a2
i =1
cos (r, p) = i i
i =1
r4 = p 4
2
i
2
i
(12)
i =1
max
r2
p2
max (r , p) = arccos(2 1h (1 + h ))
(13)
To visualize the results geometrically, consider the
special case of two inputs and one output. Suppose
X = [x1 , x 2 ] , X = t1 a1T + t 2 aT2 , Y = c1 t1 + c 2 t 2 , then (13) is
transformed the form as follow:
max (r , p) = arccos(2 12 (1 + 2 ))
(14)
From (14), it can be seen that angle between p and
r1 = p1
a1
iterations. When i = 0 , E0 = X , F0 = Y . E
i1 and Fi1 are
1384
Ei1
R(X)
ti
Ei
Ei1
E
i1
(15)
ETi-1Fi-1Fi-T1Ei
ETi-1Fi-2 FiT2 Ei 1
x1
x2
xp
(17)
(18)
then
(22)
1
Y' = E ( ET E ) ET Y
(24)
-1
T
= E ( ET E ) ET Y
(25)
C = Y T(T T)
Combine (22), (23), (24), and (25), the specific form of
B is gotten as follow:
B = XT U(TT XXT U ) 1 TT Y
(26)
Therefore, for X = ( x1 , x 2 ,
Y = ( y1 , y 2 ,
= XB
Y
so that
y1
y2
yq
B = W ( PT W ) CT
F
i 1
R(Y)
Fi1
(29)
= E ( ET E ) ET Y
1
, x p ) and
Y' = ( X - XRPT )( ET E ) ET Y
1
is shown in Fig. 3.
= X ( I - RPT )( ET E ) ET Y
1
= XB'
1385
(30)
B' = ( I - RPT )( ET E ) ET
1
(31)
= XB + XB '
= X[ XT U(TT XXT U ) 1 TT Y + ( I - RPT )( ET E ) ET Y]
1
(32)
= XB M
where B M is modified regression coefficient. It is written as:
(33)
y i )
(34)
n
Seen from the values in Table II, the conclusion that the
modified PLS has higher accuracy is drawn.
Table II
Comparison of the two PLS methods performance
Model
Training RMSE Prediction RMSE
Conventional PLS
0.0017
0.0043
Modified PLS
9.1689e-004
0.0017
-3
t i = Ei w i / Ei w i ,
u i +1 = Fi q i ;
(4) Calculate the loading vector: pi = ETi t i / tTi t i ;
(5) Calculate the loading vector: qi = FiT t i / tTi t i ;
Ei +1 = Ei t i pTi
;
Fi +1 = Fi t i qTi
(7) Return to Step (2) until i = h , h is the number of
principal component calculated with cross-validation.
X = TPT + Eh +1
(8) Obtain the prediction model:
;
Y = TQT + Fh +1
x 10
-2
PLS
Modified PLS
-4
-6
i =1
RMSE =
F0 = Y , i = 0 ;
(2) Select a random row in Fh to be ui ;
(3) Follow the steps below until t h is convergent to a
satisfactory degree:
w i = ETi ui / uTi ui ,
qi = FiT t i / FiT t i
(y
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Samples
Fig. 4 Training error of penicillin concentration with conventional PLS and
modified PLS
0.4
Q = [q1 , q 2 q h ] ;
(9) Calculate the projection matrix of E h+1 in Y :
PE = YT E h +1 ETh +1E h +1 ;
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
PLS
Modified PLS
0.3
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Samples
Fig. 5 Training error of generated heat with conventional PLS and
modified PLS
1386
0.01
0.005
-0.005
PLS
Modified PLS
-0.01
-0.015
10
12
14
16
18
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
20
Samples
Fig. 6 Prediction error of penicillin concentration with conventional
PLS and modified PLS
REFERENCES
[1] Q. Chen, U. Kruger, Analysis of extended partial least squares for
monitoring large-scale processes, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 807-813, September 2005.
[2] J.H. Chen, K.C. Liu, On-line batch process monitoring using dynamic
PCA and dynamic PLS models, Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 57,
no. 1, pp. 63-75, January 2002.
[3] Y. Zhang, L. Zhang, Fault identification of nonlinear processes,
Industrial & engineering chemistry research, vol. 52, no. 34, pp. 1207212081, August 2012.
[4] S.J. Qin, Survey on data-driven industrial process monitoring and
diagnosis, Annual reviews in control, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 220-234,
December 2012.
[5] S.J. Qin, Y. Zheng, Quality-relevant and process-relevant fault
monitoring with concurrent projection to latent structures, AIChE
Journal, Vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 496-504, Feb 2013.
[6] G. Li, S.J. Qin and D. Zhou, Geometric properties of partial least squares
for process monitoring, Automatica, Vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 204-210, January
2010. 33.
[7] S. Wold, Cross-validatory estimation of components in factor and
principal components model, Technometrics, vol. 20, pp. 397-405, 1978.
[8] B.S. Dayal, J.F. MacGregor, Improved PLS algorithms, Journal of
chemometrics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 73-85, 1997.
[9] Y. Zhang, C. Wang, R. Lu, Modeling and monitoring of multimode
process based on subspace separation, Chemical engineering research &
design, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 831-842, May 2013.
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
PLS
Modified PLS
-0.4
-0.5
10
12
14
16
18
20
Samples
Fig. 7 Prediction error of generated heat with conventional PLS and
modified PLS
0.92
0.91
0.9
0.89
0.88
0.87
PLS
Modified PLS
True Value
0.86
0.85
0.84
10
12
14
16
18
20
Samples
Fig. 8 Quality variable track conditions for penicillin concentration
68.5
68
67.5
67
66.5
PLS
Modified PLS
True Value
66
65.5
10
12
14
16
18
20
Samples
Fig. 9 Quality variable track conditions for generated heat
IV. CONCLUSION
1387