4.6 Article

Comparative Analysis of a Principal Component Analysis-Based and an Artificial Neural Network-Based Method for Baseline Removal

Journal

APPLIED SPECTROSCOPY
Volume 70, Issue 4, Pages 604-617

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0003702816631293

Keywords

Automated baseline estimation; Baseline removal; Sampled bases; Learning matrix; Principal component analysis (PCA); Artificial neural networks (ANN)

Funding

  1. Fondecyt [11110364, 1130682]
  2. PIA-CONICYT [PFB0824]
  3. Comision Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, CONICYT PAI/project [7813110013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work presents a non-parametric method based on a principal component analysis (PCA) and a parametric one based on artificial neural networks (ANN) to remove continuous baseline features from spectra. The non-parametric method estimates the baseline based on a set of sampled basis vectors obtained from PCA applied over a previously composed continuous spectra learning matrix. The parametric method, however, uses an ANN to filter out the baseline. Previous studies have demonstrated that this method is one of the most effective for baseline removal. The evaluation of both methods was carried out by using a synthetic database designed for benchmarking baseline removal algorithms, containing 100 synthetic composed spectra at different signal-to-baseline ratio (SBR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and baseline slopes. In addition to deomonstrating the utility of the proposed methods and to compare them in a real application, a spectral data set measured from a flame radiation process was used. Several performance metrics such as correlation coefficient, chi-square value, and goodness-of-fit coefficient were calculated to quantify and compare both algorithms. Results demonstrate that the PCA-based method outperforms the one based on ANN both in terms of performance and simplicity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available