4.7 Article

Scent classification by K nearest neighbors using ion-mobility spectrometry measurements

期刊

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
卷 115, 期 -, 页码 593-606

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.08.042

关键词

Machine learning; K nearest neighbours; Ion-mobility spectrometry; Scent classification

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [295432, 295433, 295434]
  2. Finnish Cultural Foundation
  3. Academy of Finland (AKA) [295434, 295433, 295432, 295432, 295434, 295433] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various classifiers for scent classification based on measurements using an electronic nose (eNose) have been studied recently. In general, classifiers rely on a static database containing reference eNose measurements for known scents. However, most of these approaches require retraining of the classifier every time a new scent needs to be added to the training database. In this paper, the potential of a K nearest neighbors (KNN) classifier is investigated to avoid the time-consuming retraining when updating the database. To speed up classification, a k-dimensional tree search in the KNN classifier and principal component analysis (PCA) are studied. The tests with scents presented to an eNose based on ion-mobility spectrometry (IMS) show that the KNN method classifies scents with high accuracy. Using a k-dimensional tree search instead of an exhaustive search has no significant influence on the misclassification rate but reduces the classification time considerably. The use of PCA-transformed data results in a higher misclassification rate than the use of IMS data when only the first principal components explaining 95% of the total variance are used but in a similar misclassification rate when the first principal components explaining 99% of the total variance are used. In conclusion, the proposed method can be recommended for classifying scents measured with IMS-based eNoses. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据