| Literature DB >> 35371249 |
Kang Sun1,2, Yuxuan Meng1, Shuchun Dong2.
Abstract
In order to enhance the classification accuracy and the generalization performance of the SVM classifier in cable partial discharge (PD) pattern recognition, a firefly optimized sparrow search algorithm (FoSSA) is proposed to optimize its kernel function parameters and penalty factors. First, the Circle-Gauss hybrid mapping model is employed in the population initialization stage of the sparrow search algorithm (SSA) to eliminate the uneven population distribution of random mapping. Sparrows tend to fall into local extremums during the search process, while the firefly algorithm has a fast optimization speed and strong local search ability. Thus, a firefly disturbance is added in the sparrow search process, and the fitness value is recalculated to update the sparrow position to enhance the sparrow's local optimization ability and accuracy. Finally, based on the SSA, a dynamic step-size strategy is adopted to make the step size dynamically decrease with the number of iterations and improve the accuracy of convergence. Six benchmark functions are employed to evaluate the optimization performance of the FoSSA quantitatively. Experiment results show that the recognition accuracy of the PD patterns using the SVM optimized by the FoSSA could reach 97.5%.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35371249 PMCID: PMC8975699 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7566731
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Population initialization scatter plot of three methods. (a) Circle map. (b) Gauss map. (c) Circle-Gauss map.
Expressions of characteristic parameters.
| Symbol of parameters | Meaning |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Symbol definition of characteristic quantity.
| Characteristic | Symbol description |
|---|---|
| Mean |
|
| Variance |
|
| Skewness |
|
| Steepness |
|
| Local peak number |
|
| Discharge factor | Q |
| Degree of phase asymmetry | ∅ |
| Cross-correlation coefficient |
|
| Corrected cross-correlation coefficient |
|
Figure 2Flow chart of PD pattern recognition based on FoSSA-SVM.
Discharge voltage of different defects.
| Defect type | Discharge voltage |
|---|---|
| Outer semiconductive layer creepage | 5.6 kV, 6.6 kV |
| Internal air gap | 5.3 kV, 11.3 kV, 18.3 kV |
| Scratch of insulation surface | 5.6 kV, 9.6 kV, 13.6 kV |
| Metallic filth on insulation surface | 6 kV, 20 kV, 34 kV |
Figure 3PRPD spectra of four type defects. (a) Outer semiconductive layer creepage (5.6 kV). (b) Internal air gap (5.3 kV). (c) Scratch of the insulation surface (5.6 kV). (d) Metallic filth (6 kV).
Test function expressions and their range.
| Test function | Range |
|---|---|
|
| [−30, 30] |
|
| [−1.28, 1.28] |
|
| [−32, 32] |
Figure 4Convergence results of test functions. (a) Convergence results of f1(x). (b) Convergence results of f2(x). (c) Convergence results of f3(x).
Function expressions and their range.
| Test function | Range |
|---|---|
|
| [−500, 500] |
|
| [−500, 500] |
|
| [0, 1] |
Figure 5Convergence rate and optimal contour of test functions. (a) Convergence rate and optimal contour of f4(x). (b) Convergence rate and optimal contour of f5(x). (c) Convergence rate and optimal contour of f6(x).
Comparison of optimization results.
| Function | Optimizer | Optimal value | Worst value | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| SSA | −10139.98 | −6154.46 | −8145.43 |
| FoSSA | −36168.05 | −28325.41 | −34049.27 | |
| LevySSA | −30725.72 | −26342.56 | −28072.35 | |
| tSSA | −29325.62 | −23210.74 | −28705.26 | |
| RandSSA | −23257.82 | −19072.23 | −21072.43 | |
|
| ||||
|
| SSA | −15642.13 | −13425.62 | −14568.18 |
| FoSSA | −35653.03 | −31971.04 | −34895.24 | |
| LevySSA | −16725.12 | −14236.42 | −15742.84 | |
| tSSA | −16732.45 | −14584.72 | −15643.72 | |
| RandSSA | −17325.42 | −14346.28 | −16435.65 | |
|
| ||||
|
| SSA | −3.2432 | −3.0898 | −3.1042 |
| FoSSA | −3.8947 | −3.8628 | −3.8725 | |
| LevySSA | −3.7243 | −3.2649 | −3.4634 | |
| tSSA | −3.7254 | −3.6234 | −3.6927 | |
| RandSSA | −3.3274 | −3.1324 | −3.2736 | |
Optimal parameter combination of different classification models.
| Classifier |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| SSA-SVM | 0.12 | 14.50 |
| FoSSA-SVM | 4.45 | 0.76 |
| LevySSA-SVM | 6.31 | 14.56 |
| tSSA-SVM | 1.77 | 8.11 |
| RandSSA-SVM | 0.14 | 8.34 |
Figure 6Classification results of different classification models. (a) FoSSA-SVM. (b) LevySSA-SVM. (c) RandSSA-SVM. (d) tSSA-SVM. (e) SSA-SVM.
Comparison of accuracy and times consumption of different models.
| Classifier | Accuracy |
|
|---|---|---|
| SSA-SVM | 90% | 512 |
| FoSSA-SVM | 97.5% | 362 |
| LevySSA-SVM | 95% | 494 |
| tSSA-SVM | 93.75% | 394 |
| RandSSA-SVM | 92.5% | 402 |
Prediction accuracy of different models.
| Classifier | FoSSA-SVM | PSO-SVM | GA-SVM |
|---|---|---|---|
| Error number | 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Accuracy | 97.5% | 91.25% | 88.75% |