| Literature DB >> 28805721 |
Zhan Wang1, Xiyang Sun2, Jiacheng Miao3, You Wang4, Zhiyuan Luo5, Guang Li6.
Abstract
An estimate on the reliability of prediction in the applications of electronic nose is essential, which has not been paid enough attention. An algorithm framework called conformal prediction is introduced in this work for discriminating different kinds of ginsengs with a home-made electronic nose instrument. Nonconformity measure based on k-nearest neighbors (KNN) is implemented separately as underlying algorithm of conformal prediction. In offline mode, the conformal predictor achieves a classification rate of 84.44% based on 1NN and 80.63% based on 3NN, which is better than that of simple KNN. In addition, it provides an estimate of reliability for each prediction. In online mode, the validity of predictions is guaranteed, which means that the error rate of region predictions never exceeds the significance level set by a user. The potential of this framework for detecting borderline examples and outliers in the application of E-nose is also investigated. The result shows that conformal prediction is a promising framework for the application of electronic nose to make predictions with reliability and validity.Entities:
Keywords: conformal prediction; electronic nose; ginseng; k-nearest neighbors
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28805721 PMCID: PMC5579557 DOI: 10.3390/s17081869
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Details of the ginseng samples.
| No. | Ginseng Samples | Places of Production |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chinese red ginseng | Ji’an |
| 2 | Chinese red ginseng | Fusong |
| 3 | Korean red ginseng | Ji’an |
| 4 | Chinese white ginseng | Ji’an |
| 5 | Chinese white ginseng | Fusong |
| 6 | American ginseng | Fusong |
| 7 | American ginseng | USA |
| 8 | American ginseng | Canada |
| 9 | American ginseng | Tonghua |
The response characteristics of sensors.
| No. | Sensor Type | Response Characteristic |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | TGS800 | Carbon monoxide, ethanol, methane, hydrogen, ammonia |
| 2 | TGS813 | Carbon monoxide, ethanol, methane, hydrogen, isobutane |
| 3 | TGS813 | Carbon monoxide, ethanol, methane, hydrogen, isobutane |
| 4 | TGS816 | Carbon monoxide, ethanol, methane, hydrogen, isobutane |
| 5 | TGS821 | Carbon monoxide, ethanol, methane, hydrogen |
| 6 | TGS822 | Carbon monoxide, ethanol, methane, acetone, n-Hexane, benzene, isobutane |
| 7 | TGS822 | Carbon monoxide, ethanol, methane, acetone, n-Hexane, benzene, isobutane |
| 8 | TGS826 | Ammonia, trimethyl amine |
| 9 | TGS830 | Ethanol, R-12, R-11, R-22, R-113 |
| 10 | TGS832 | R-134a, R-12 and R-22, ethanol |
| 11 | TGS800 | Carbon monoxide, ethanol, methane, hydrogen, isobutane |
| 12 | TGS2620 | Methane, Carbon monoxide, isobutane, hydrogen |
| 13 | TGS2600 | Carbon monoxide, hydrogen |
| 14 | TGS2602 | Hydrogen, ammonia ethanol, hydrogen sulfide, toluene |
| 15 | TGS2610 | Ethanol, hydrogen, methane, isobutane/propane |
| 16 | TGS2611 | Ethanol, hydrogen, isobutane, methane |
Figure 1The schematics of the E-nose system.
Figure 2The procedure of measurement.
Figure 3Typical response curves of 16 metal-oxide semi-conductive sensors to a sample.
Typical individual prediction with CP-1NN (conformal prediction based on 1NN).
| Sample Serial | True Lable | Forced Prediction | Confidence | Credibility | Simple Prediction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||||
| 2 | |||||
| 3 | |||||
| 4 |
Comparison of average classification rate of forced conformal predictors and simple predictors.
| Predictors | 1NN | 3NN |
|---|---|---|
| Forced conformal predictor | 84.44% | 80.63% |
| Simple predictor | 84.13% | 77.46% |
Figure 4Online conformal prediction with confidence level of 80%.
Figure 5The cumulative errors of online prediction with CP-1NN (conformal prediction based on 1NN) at confidence levels of 80%, 85% and 90%.
Figure 6Cumulative multiple predictions of online conformal prediction with CP-1NN at different confidence levels of 80%, 85% and 90%.
Criterion of efficiency for online conformal predictors.
| Confidence Level | CP-1NN | CP-3NN | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M Criterion | E Criterion | M Criterion | E Criterion | |
| 80% | 15.29% | 1.23 | 23.92% | 1.32 |
| 85% | 22.35% | 1.40 | 32.94% | 1.47 |
| 90% | 36.08% | 1.62 | 45.88% | 1.75 |