Dataset Information

A comparative analysis of the principal component analysis and entropy weight methods to establish the indexing measurement.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As the world's largest coal producer, China was accounted for about 46% of global coal production. Among present coal mining risks, methane gas (called gas in this paper) explosion or ignition in an underground mine remains ever-present. Although many techniques have been used, gas accidents associated with the complex elements of underground gassy mines need more robust monitoring or warning systems to identify risks. This paper aimed to determine which single method between the PCA and Entropy methods better establishes a responsive weighted indexing measurement to improve coal mining safety.

Methods

Qualitative and quantitative mixed research methodologies were adopted for this research, including analysis of two case studies, correlation analysis, and comparative analysis. The literature reviewed the most-used multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods, including subjective methods and objective methods. The advantages and disadvantages of each MCDM method were briefly discussed. One more round literature review was conducted to search publications between 2017 and 2019 in CNKI. Followed two case studies, correlation analysis and comparative analysis were then conducted. Research ethics was approved by the Shanxi Coking Coal Group Research Committee.

Results

The literature searched a total of 25,831publications and found that the PCA method was the predominant method adopted, and the Entropy method was the second most widely adopted method. Two weighting methods were compared using two case studies. For the comparative analysis of Case Study 1, the PCA method appeared to be more responsive than the Entropy. For Case Study 2, the Entropy method is more responsive than the PCA. As a result, both methods were adopted for different cases in the case study mine and finally deployed for user acceptance testing on 5 November 2020.

Conclusions

The findings and suggestions were provided as further scopes for further research. This research indicated that no single method could be adopted as the better option for establishing indexing measurement in all cases. The practical implication suggests that comparative analysis should always be conducted on each case and determine the appropriate weighting method to the relevant case. This research recommended that the PCA method was a dimension reduction technique that could be handy for identifying the critical variables or factors and effectively used in hazard, risk, and emergency assessment. The PCA method might also be well-applied for developing predicting and forecasting systems as it was sensitive to outliers. The Entropy method might be suitable for all the cases requiring the MCDM. There is also a need to conduct further research to probe the causal reasons why the PCA and Entropy methods were applied to each case and not the other way round. This research found that the Entropy method provides higher accuracy than the PCA method. This research also found that the Entropy method demonstrated to assess the weights of the higher dimension dataset was higher sensitivity than the lower dimensions. Finally, the comprehensive analysis indicates a need to explore a more responsive method for establishing a weighted indexing measurement for warning applications in hazard, risk, and emergency assessments.

SUBMITTER: Wu RMX

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8802816 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrincipal component analysis is used to summarize matrix data, such as found in transcriptome, proteome or metabolome and medical examinations, into fewer dimensions by fitting the matrix to orthogonal axes. Although this methodology is frequently used in multivariate analyses, it has disadvantages when applied to experimental data. First, the identified principal components have poor generality; since the size and directions of the components are dependent on the particular data set, the components are valid only within the data set. Second, the method is sensitive to experimental noise and bias between sample groups. It cannot reflect the experimental design that is planned to manage the noise and bias; rather, it estimates the same weight and independence to all the samples in the matrix. Third, the resulting components are often difficult to interpret. To address these issues, several options were introduced to the methodology. First, the principal axes were identified using training data sets and shared across experiments. These training data reflect the design of experiments, and their preparation allows noise to be reduced and group bias to be removed. Second, the center of the rotation was determined in accordance with the experimental design. Third, the resulting components were scaled to unify their size unit.ResultsThe effects of these options were observed in microarray experiments, and showed an improvement in the separation of groups and robustness to noise. The range of scaled scores was unaffected by the number of items. Additionally, unknown samples were appropriately classified using pre-arranged axes. Furthermore, these axes well reflected the characteristics of groups in the experiments. As was observed, the scaling of the components and sharing of axes enabled comparisons of the components beyond experiments. The use of training data reduced the effects of noise and bias in the data, facilitating the physical interpretation of the principal axes.ConclusionsTogether, these introduced options result in improved generality and objectivity of the analytical results. The methodology has thus become more like a set of multiple regression analyses that find independent models that specify each of the axes.