Day1 Session1

Some Mathematical Theory for
Potential Modeling:
A Concise Survey of Models and Methods
Helmut Schaeben
Department of Geophysics and Geoinformatics
World Conference on Resource Modeling

Vilnius, Lithuania, Jul 811, 2014
Potential modeling
Contents
Introduction
Objective
Prerequisites
Methods
Weights-of-evidence
Logistic regression
Artificial neural nets
Comparison
Examples
Conclusions
Potential Modeling
Potential Modeling
Objective
The ultimate goal of potential modeling or targeting is to
recognize locations for which the probability of a target event T
like a specific mineralization is a relative maximum.
The event must be sufficiently well understood in terms of cause
and effect to collect data corresponding to spatially referenced
factors B` , ` = 0, . . . , m, in favor or against the event T to occur.
Then spatially referenced posterior probabilities given the factors
can be estimated by several approaches including
weights-of-evidence, logistic regression, fuzzy logic, artificial neural
nets, statistical learning, support vector machines, and others.
These methods require a training area to estimate the parameters
of the model M (0 , . . . , m | (b0,i , . . . , bm,i , ti )i=1,...,n ).
Definition of Terms
Odds
For probabilities P(T ) 6= 1, T A, odds are defined as the ratio
O(T ) =
P(T )
P(T )
=
, p [0, 1).
1 P(T )
P({T )
Definition of Terms
Odds
O(T ) =
P(T )
P(T )
=
, p [0, 1).
1 P(T )
P({T )
Logits
Logits are defined as
logit(T ) = ln O(T ) = ln
P(T )
, p [0, 1).
1 P(T )
Definition of Terms
Odds
O(T ) =
P(T )
P(T )
=
, p [0, 1).
1 P(T )
P({T )
Logits
Logits are defined as
logit(T ) = ln O(T ) = ln
P(T )
, p [0, 1).
1 P(T )
Logistic function
The logistic function is defined as
1
(z) =
, z R.
1 + exp(z)
Definition of Terms
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.4
logisticfunction
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.2
logisticfunction
0.8
1.0
Logistic function
-10
-5
0
z
10
-10
-5
10
Graphs of the sigmoidal function (z) (left) and (32z) (right).
Definition of Terms
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.4
logisticfunction
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.2
logisticfunction
0.8
1.0
Logistic function
-10
-5
10
-10
-5
10
Graphs of the sigmoidal function (z) (left) and (32z) (right).

Remark
Logit transform and logistic function are mutually inverse, i.e.
(z)
= z.
logit (z) = ln
1 (z)
Definition of Terms
Conditional independence of random variables
Two random variables B1 and B2 are conditionally independent
given the random target variable T, B1 B2 | T, if the joint
conditional probability factorizes into the individual conditional
probabilities
PB1 B2 |T = PB1 |T PB2 |T .
Conditional independence in terms of irrelevance
Equivalently, but more instructively, two random variables B1 , B2
are conditionally independent given the random variable T, if
knowing T renders B2 irrelevant for predicting B1 .
In terms of conditional probabilities,
PB1 |B2 T = PB1 |T .
Independence vs. conditional independence
Independence does not imply conditional independence and vv.
Weights-of-Evidence
Assuming conditional independence of binary predictors
B` , ` = 1, . . . , m, given the binary random target variable T yields
weights of evidence
(1)
W`
:= ln
P(B` = 1 | T = 1)
,
P(B` = 1 | T = 0)
(1)
C` = W `
(0)
W`
(0)
:= ln
P(B` = 0 | T = 1)
,
P(B` = 0 | T = 0)
W` , ` = 1, . . . , m.
Weights-of-Evidence
Assuming conditional independence of binary predictors
B` , ` = 1, . . . , m, given the binary random target variable T yields
weights of evidence
(1)
W`
:= ln
P(B` = 1 | T = 1)
,
P(B` = 1 | T = 0)
(1)
C` = W `
(0)
W`
:= ln
P(B` = 0 | T = 1)
,
P(B` = 0 | T = 0)
(0)
W` , ` = 1, . . . , m.
in terms of a logit (loglinear form of Bayes formula)

logit (P(T = 1 | B1 . . . Bm )) = logitP(T = 1) + W +
m
X
C` B` ,
`=1
with W =
Pm
`=1
(0)
W` .
in terms of a probability
P (T = 1 | B1 . . . Bm ) = logitP(T = 1) + W +
m
X
`=1
!
C` B`
Logistic Regression
Conditional expectation of a binary random target variable T given
a (m + 1)variate random predictor variable
B = (B0 , B1 , . . . , Bm )T with B0 1
E(T | B) = P(T = 1 | B).
Then the logistic regression model without interaction terms is
in terms of a logit
logitP(T = 1 | B) = T B = 0 +
m
X
` B` ,
`=1
in terms of a probability

P (T = 1 | B) = B = 0 +
m
X
`=1
!
` B`
Weights-of-evidence vs logistic regression

Weights-of-evidence
P (T = 1 | B) = logitP(T = 1) + W +
X
`:B` =1
with
W =
m
X
(0)
W`
`=1
Logistic regression for binary predictors
P (T = 1 | B) = 0 +
X
`:B` =1
C`
Weights-of-evidence vs logistic regression

Weights-of-evidence
P (T = 1 | B) = logitP(T = 1) + W +
C`
`:B` =1
with
W =
m
X
(0)
W`
`=1
Logistic regression for binary predictors
P (T = 1 | B) = 0 +
`:B` =1
In case of conditional independence of B given T

0 = logitP(T = 1) + W ,
` = C` , ` = 1, . . . , m.
Artificial Neural Nets

Singlelayer feedforward artificial neural net
With respect to artificial neural nets
m

X
(bi ) = 0 +
` b`,i , i = 1, . . . , n
`=1
is called a singlelayer
perceptron or singlelayer ANN,
Cartoon of a single hidden layer ANN from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial
neural network
minimization of the sum of squared residuals is referred to as

training,
gradient methods to solve for the model parameters are
referred to as linear perceptron training rule,
the stepsize along the negative gradient is called learning rate,
etc.
Artificial neural networks vs. regression (1)

Multilayer ANN
The basic neural network model can be described as a sequence of
functional transformations:
1
input: predictor variables B;
first layer: linear combinations Aj , j = 1, . . . , J, of the

predictor variables B, referred to as activations;
hidden layer: each of them is subject to a transformation

applying a nonlinear differentiable activation function h
usually of sigmoidal shape, referred to as hidden units;
second layer: linear combinations Aj , k = 1, . . . , K of hidden

units, referred to as output unit activations;
output: each of them is subject to an activation function S,

e.g. logistic function.
(1)
(2)

Multilayer ANN
[input unit] activations:
(1)
Aj
m
X
(1)
j` B` , j = 1, . . . , J,
`=0
hidden units: Zj
(2)
output unit activations: Ak

(1)
= h Aj
, j = 1, . . . , J,
=
J
X
(2)
kj Zj , k = 1, . . . , K ,
j=0
outputs: k
= S
(2)
Ak
, k = 1, . . . , K .
Then
!
X
m
X
J (2)
(1)
k = S
kj h
j` B`
, k = 1, . . . , K .
j=0
`=0
|
{z
}
hidden layer

Multilayer ANN
If h = S = and K = 1, then
!
X
m
X
J (2)
(1)
j
j` B`
P(T = 1 | B) =
.
j=0
| `=0{z
}
hidden layer
If S = , h = id and K = 1, then
J
X
(2)
P(T = 1 | B) =
m
X
j=0
= 0 +
`=0
m
X
`=1
which is logistic regression.
!
(1)
j` B`
!
` B`
Example with fabricated data - Training set
10
10
8
indicator target T
indicator predictor B2
y
1
6
x
10
10
1
6
x
10
10
Spatial distribution of two binary predictor variables B1 , B2 , and

the binary target variable T
Correlation matrix
Correlation matrix of the fabricated dataset with B1 , B2 , T
B1
B2
T
B1
B2
1.0000000
-0.0000000
0.3026050
-0.0000000
1.0000000
0.2305562
0.3026050
0.2305562
1.0000000
The indicator predictor variables B1 and B2 seem to be

uncorrelated, while B1 and T, and B1 and T, respectively, are
significantly correlated for all significance levels > 0.002213 and
> 0.02101, respectively.

Test of conditional independence
Significance test of the null-hypothesis of conditional independence
referring to a loglinear model
Statistics:
Likelihood Ratio
Pearson
2
5.484206
5.185943
df
2
2
P(> 2 )
0.06443468
0.07479743
The significance test of conditional independence referring to a

loglinear model results in the possible rejection of the
null-hypothesis of conditional independence for all levels
> 0.06443468 according to the likelihood ratio test and for all
levels > 0.07479743 according to the Pearson test, respectively.

Test of maximum loglinear model
Significance test of the null-hypothesis that a logistic regression
model including the interaction term B1 B2 is sufficiently large
Statistics:
Likelihood Ratio
Pearson
2
0
0
df
0
0
P(> 2 )
1
1
Testing if the interaction term B1 B2 enlarges the model

sufficiently results in the conclusion that the null-hypothesis that a
logistic regression model including the interaction term B1 B2 is
sufficiently large, cannot at all be rejected.

relative conditional frequencies for rankit
1.0
10
0.8
8
rows
0.6
6
0.4
4
0.2
2
0.0
2
10
cols
b = 1 | B1 B2 )
Spatial distribution of P(T
according to elementary estimation training set!!

Weights-of-evidence model
Summary of the weights-of-evidence model
despite lack of conditional independence
B1
B2
sum of weights
c (1)
W
c (0)
W
b
C
1.1962
0.9679
2.1642
-0.5292
-0.3819
-0.9111
1.7255
1.3499
b = 1) = 1.8152 the
b = 1) = 0.1627, logitP(T
With O(T
weights-of-evidence model reads explicitly
b = 1 | B1 B2 ) = (2.7264 + 1.7255 B1 + 1.3499 B2 ) .
P(T

WofE for rankit

1.0
1.0
10
10
0.8
0.8
0.6
rows
rows
0.6
6
0.4
4
0.4
4
0.2
2
0.2
2
0.0
2
cols
10
0.0
2
cols
10
Logistic regression model without interaction terms

Summary
(Intercept)
B1
B2
Estimate
Std. Error
z value
P(> |z|)
-2.8312
1.8736
1.5354
0.5045
0.6553
0.6722
-5.61
2.86
2.28
0.0000
0.0042
0.0224
Then the logistic regression model without interaction terms reads

explicitly
b = 1 | B1 B2 ) = (2.831 + 1.874 B1 + 1.535 B2 ) .
P(T

Logistic regression model without interaction terms
logreg without interaction term for rankit

1.0
1.0
10
10
0.8
0.8
0.6
rows
rows
0.6
6
0.4
4
0.4
4
0.2
2
0.2
2
0.0
2
cols
10
0.0
2
cols
10

Logistic regression model with interaction term B1 B2
Summary
(Intercept)
B1
B2
B1 B2
Estimate
Std. Error
z value
P(> |z|)
-3.4340
2.9232
2.6455
-3.2333
0.7184
0.8848
0.8984
1.5515
-4.78
3.30
2.94
-2.08
0.0000
0.0010
0.0032
0.0372
The enlarged logistic regression model reads explicitly

b = 1 | B1 B2 ) = (3.434 + 2.923 B1 + 2.646 B2 3.233 B1 B2 ) ,
P(T
and confirms that it compensates exactly for the lack of

conditional independence. It predicts the conditional probabilities
almost exactly.

Logistic regression model with interaction terms
logreg with interaction term for rankit

1.0
1.0
10
10
0.8
0.8
0.6
rows
rows
0.6
6
0.4
4
0.4
4
0.2
2
0.2
2
0.0
2
cols
10
0.0
2
cols
10

Summary of the 3 term weights-of-evidence model
despite lack of conditional independence
B1
B2
B1 B2
sum of weights
c (1)
W
c (0)
W
b
C
1.1963
0.9680
0.7167
2.8809
-0.5293
-0.3819
-0.0386
-0.9497
1.7255
1.3499
0.7553
b = 1) = 1.8152 the 3 term

b = 1) = 0.1627, logitP(T
With O(T
weights-of-evidence model reads explicitly
b = 1 | B1 B2 ) = (2.7650 + 1.7255 B1 + 1.3499 B2 +0.7553 B1 B2 ) .
P(T

Wof3E for rankit

1.0
1.0
10
10
0.8
0.8
0.6
rows
rows
0.6
6
0.4
4
0.4
4
0.2
2
0.2
2
0.0
2
cols
10
0.0
2
cols
10
All models at a glance

b = 1 | B)
WofE : P(T
b = 1 | B)
Wof3E : P(T
(2.726 + 1.725 B1 + 1.349 B2 ) ,
(2.765 + 1.725 B1 + 1.349 B2 +0.755 B1 B2 ) ,
b = 1 | B)
lR : P(T
b
lRit : P(T = 1 | B)
(2.831 + 1.874 B1 + 1.535 B2 ) ,
(3.434 + 2.923 B1 + 2.646 B2 3.233 B1 B2 ) .

10
10
8
indicator target T
y
1
10
1
10
10
10

WofE for rankit
Wof3E for rankit
1.0
1.0
10
10
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
6
0.4
4
0.2
2
cols
10
0.2
2
0.0
4
0.4
4
0.2
0.4
4
0.6
rows
rows
rows
1.0
10
0.0
2
cols
10
0.0
2
10
cols
b = 1 | B1 B2 ) according to elementary
estimation, weights-of-evidence, weights-of-3evidences

10
10
8
indicator target T
y
1
10
1
10
10
10


1.0
1.0
10
10
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
6
0.4
4
0.2
2
cols
10
0.2
2
0.0
4
0.4
4
0.2
0.4
4
0.6
rows
rows
rows

1.0
10
0.0
2
cols
10
0.0
2
10
cols
estimation, logistic regression, logistic regression with interaction

posterior probs with RANNGA
1.0
1.0
10
10
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
6
0.6
rows
0.6
rows
rows
1.0
10
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
2
0.0
10
cols
0.0
10
cols
WofE for rankit
10

1.0
1.0
10
10
0.8
0.8
0.6
6
0.6
rows
rows
cols
0.4
4
0.4
4
0.2
2
0.2
2
0.0
2
cols
10
0.0
2
10
cols
estimation, logistic regression with interaction term, R-ANNGA,
weights-of-evidence, logistic regression without interaction
Numbers
Comparison of predicted conditional probabilities for various
methods
b
P(T
= 1 | B1 B2 )
B1
B1
B1
B1
=
=
=
=
1, B2
1, B2
0, B2
0, B2
=
=
=
=
1
0
1
0
counting
WofE
LogReg
LogRegwI
CompRegwI
ANNGA
0.25000
0.37500
0.31250
0.03125
0.58636
0.26875
0.20156
0.06142
0.64055
0.27736
0.21486
0.05565
0.25000
0.37500
0.31250
0.03125
0.25000
0.37500
0.31250
0.03125
0.24992
0.37502
0.31250
0.03124
Conclusions
Weights-of-evidence is the special case of logistic
regression with indicator predictor variables B, if they are
conditionally independent given the target variable T.
In this case, the contrasts of weights of evidence are identical
to the logistic regression coefficients.
Applying weights-of-evidence despite lacking conditional
independence corrupts not only the predicted conditional
probabilities but also their rank-transforms and thus the
pattern of the potential.
The canonical generalization of the nave Bayes model
featuring weights of evidence to the case of lacking conditional
independence is logistic regression including interaction
terms corresponding to violations of conditional
independence and compensating exactly for them.
In case of indicator or discrete predictor variables, the logistic
regression model is optimum.
MODELING A DELAY INDUCED SYSTEM OF ENZYME

KINETICS AND ITS OPTIMIZATION
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY,
NARULA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
WEST BENGAL, INDIA
2
CENTRE FOR MATHEMATICAL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY,

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, JADAVPUR UNIVERSITY,
WEST BENGAL, INDIA.
What is an Enzyme ???

Enzymes are biocatalysts
A protein molecule that catalyses
a biochemical reaction
Catalysts activate or inhibit

any chemical reaction
Enzyme characteristics
Protein in nature
Catalytic activity and may act as activator
or inhibitor
Acts on a specific substance called
substrate to create a product
Names of enzymes end with ase e.g.
Reverse trancriptase
Substrate Saturation of an Enzyme
A. Low [S]
B. 50% [S] or Km C. High, saturating [S]
Polymerization
Sedimentation and centrifugation
Flocculation and coagulation
Extraction
Precipitation
Chromatography
Protein modification
Starch conversion
Leather industry
Dairy industry
Textiles
Edible oils
Medicines
Biotransformation
Two approaches for enzyme kinetics

1. Michaelis-Menten kinetic (1913)
(rapid equilibrium assumption)
2.
Leonor Michaelis
(1875-1940)
Briggs-Haldane kinetic (1925)

(steady-state assumption)
Maud L. Menten
(1879-1960)
Title page of
Michaelis &
Mentens
original paper
in
Biochemische
Zeitschrift in
1913
Michaelis Menten Equation

Basic enzyme reaction model
k1
k2
S + E SE P + E
k-1
S= substrate
E = enzyme
SE = substrate - enzyme complex
P = product
DELAYED ENZYME KINETIC MATHEMATICAL MODEL
DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS OF THE PROPOSED MODEL

(WITHOUT DELAY)
DELAY INDUCED MATHEMATICAL MODEL
ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE SYSTEM
BASIC IDEA OF EXPLICIT RUNGE-KUTTA METHOD
THE OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEM
OPTIMALITY OF THE SYSTEM
Concentration trajectories of components

Using parameters values of Table 1
Here, ideal reaction conditions are considered i.e. no delay time between
conformational changes from ES to EP is observed.
Concentration trajectories of components during

delay ( = 0.75) in the system
Fluctuations of components confer oscillatory kinetics which means that

system undergoes an unstable situation
Effect of delay in the system
The magnitude of oscillation increases as time delay parameter increases from 0.6
For constant control input, the delayed system has a stable nature around its
interior equilibrium point
Applying optimal control the unstable system becomes stable after 2.5 hours
CONCLUSIONS
Delay induced mathematical model in the enzyme
kinetics has been considered.

Time lag can produce major changes in the behaviour
of a DDE system rather than ODE system.
We found out a critical value below which the system
is stable and beyond which the concentration curves
are rapidly fluctuating and the system looses its
stability.
By applying optimal control approach, the solution
trajectories approach towards a stable region.
REFERENCES
Thanks for
kind attention
Effect of Insecticide Spraying for WhiteFly Control on Jatropha Curcas Plant:

An Impulse Based Mathematical Approach
DR. PRITI KUMAR ROY
Associate Professor
Centre for Mathematical Biology and
Ecology
Department of Mathematics
Jadavpur University
kolkata 700032, India
email:pritiju@gmail.com
NATURAL RESOURCE MODELLING 2014

VILNIUS UNIVERSITY
LITHUANIA
OUTLINE OF THE TALK

Introduction
Objectives
Formulation of Mathematical Model
The System with Impulsive Attributes

Phenomenon for Fixed Insecticide
Spraying
Optimal Control Theoretic Approach
Numerical Simulation
Concluding remarks
ABOUT JATROPHA CURCAS PLANT

JATROPHA CURCAS plant is one of the NATURAL RESOURCES belonging
to spurge family.
It is a poisonous, semi-evergreen small tree of height 6 m.
The plant can be cultivated in wastelands and grows on almost any type of territory,
even on sandy and saline soils.
The seeds of Jatropha Curcas contain 27% - 40% oil that can be administered to
obtain a high-quality alternative fuel biodiesel through chemical process.
After extracting biodiesel, the residue (press cake) can also be used as biomass
feedstock to power electric plants. This cake can also be applied to manufacture
biogas.
Unfortunately, this natural resource Jatropha Curcas plant is highly aected mainly
by the mosaic virus that is carried through infected white-ies.
It causes a great loss in our socio-economic environment.
JATROPHA CURCAS
ABOUT WHITE-FLY
White-ies are tiny ying insects having a dry wax that protects them from
adverse situation.
They will be displayed year round in the southern part but latent throughout
the winter months in the northern region of the world.
The species are developed from eggs and raised by way of a series of instars.
Once the adult ies appear, they will lay eggs that are very small in size and
almost unseen in less than a week mainly at the safe portions of the plant.
Their growth can happen in less than a month but life-cycles can be matured
as long as a year if the circumstances are not in favor.
As white-ies are tremendously productive, if once they get conventional on
any part of the plant around the garden, they will voluntarily move and try to
attack any other immediate vegetation.
WHITE-FLY
ABOUT MOSAIC VIRUS

Mosaic virus is one type of plant viruses that cause the leaves of plants with
a spotted look and spreading mainly depends on the vector white-ies.

The interesting feature is that the low density of the host plant furnishes
disease transmission at a faster rate compared to the high density.
A single virus penetrated white-y is adequate to infect the host plant but
transmission of the disease is developed when numerous infected white-ies
feed on the host plants.
Virus infected white-ies cause the leaf damage and sap drainage. Also,
they evacuate honeydew that traps other pests (or insects) onto the host
plant Jatropha Curcas.
White-y population will enhance with the rainfall, but dense rains may
obstruct spread of white-y and thus decline the virus appearance.
HOW WHITE-FLIES AFFECT THE PLANTS
INFECTED PLANT
ABOUT INSECTICIDE
o There are several organic substances that can be sprayed / applied over
o
o
o
o
Jatropha Curcas plant to control white-y population. The Insecticidal

Soap is one of them.
It averts adults from ying and so they are not able to migrate to the
neighboring plants.
Secondly, it breaks the assemblies from laying more amounts of eggs.
Finally, this soap will block the groups of colony of white-ies.
This insecticide is very harmless and safe. So that one can easily spray this
soap on any plant including fruits and vegetables without any danger.
INSECTICIDAL SOAP
THE HEALTHY PLANTS AFTER USING PESTICIDE
OUR OBJECTIVES
Huge population or dense feeding by white-ies can harm Jatropha
Curcas plants causing yellowing leaves and ultimately death to the host
plants.
On that outlook, we wish to spray the Insecticidal Soap on the host plant in
two dierent avenues.
One is xed optimal control (implicit form) and another is the impulsive
approach (explicit form).
On that basis, we desire to study a comparative analysis between two
dierent approaches and nd the most eective method to control the
vector white-ies.
We wish to incorporate the impulsive approach to reduce the vector
population (white-y), which causes the movement of virus to the Jatropha
Curcas plant.
FORMULATION OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL

We consider here the densities of healthy and infected Jatropha Curcas
plants as x and y respectively.
II. We introduce a latent class in our research article to separate the
population of those plants that are not infected after being penetrated by
infected white-ies. The density of Jatropha Curcas plants in latent
period is denoted as l.
III. We denote u and v for the non-infected and infected vectors (white-y)
respectively.
IV. We take logistic fashion in the growth equation of healthy plants such
that the population cannot grow unboundedly. We consider r as
maximum plantation rate with k as maximum plant density.
V. We consider an interaction between the healthy plants and infected
vectors and denote as infection rate between them.
VI. We consider a recovery from latent class to healthy class through the
spraying of Insecticidal Soap. That rate of recovery is denoted by
I.
FORMULATION OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL
VII. We assume the rate a for the transfer of plants to the infected state from
the latent phase.
VIII. We consider the harvesting of infected plants at a rate g and also the
rate of normal plant loss is treated as
IX. We assume logistic type growth in the non-infected vectors white-y
with b as the maximum vector birth rate and m as the maximum vector
abundance because the population do not grow unboundedly.
X. We consider the interaction between infected plants and non-infected
vectors. The non-infected vector population is reduced with as the
acquisition rate.
XI. The vector mortality rate is considered as c for both non-infected and
infected vectors.
MATHEMATICAL MODEL
The System with Impulsive Attributes
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
We formulate a mathematical model to observe the impact of impulse with

xed insecticide (Insecticidal Soap) spraying to control the vector whiteies.
During that spraying, the number of vectors (both non-infected and infected)
in the environment are made less by some proportion s.
When we spray the insecticide in to the environment, it aects both noninfected and infected population simultaneously because we are unable to
distinguish between two kinds of vector population.
We assume the sum of non-infected and infected vectors (white-y), i.e., u +
v = w and we also denote the sum of healthy, latent class and infected
Jatropha Curcas plants as N, i.e., x + l + y = N.
On that basis, the One-Dimensional Impulsive Dierential Equation takes
the form
One-Dimensional
Impulsive Dierential EquatioN
Phenomenon for Fixed Insecticide Spraying
BIOLOGICAL REMARKS
If the time interval be always less than some preassigned quantity i.e.,
then we are capable to restrict
the vector population under the threshold value
In
other words, this contributes the maximum interval for
spraying to restrain of the vectors that the infection lies
within
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION AND HAMILTONIAN
Numerical Simulation
Table. Values of the parameters used in the model equation
Figure 1: Population densities are plotted as a function of time and value of the parameters
are given in Table.
Figure 2: Control Prole is plotted as a function of time.
Figure 3: Population densities of Healthy Plants, Infected Plants, Non-Infected Vectors and
Infected Vectors are plotted as a function of time after applying the insecticide at an impulsive
mode and value of the parameters are given in Table.
Figure 4: Population densities of Healthy Plants (x), Infected Plants (y) and Infected
Vectors (v) are plotted as a function of time with and without control approach and value
of the parameters are given in Table.
Why Impulsive Approach is more EECTIVE

The healthy plant population reaches 95 - 100 numbers of plants after
imposing optimal control approach in 100 days. But when we apply the
insecticide spraying through the impulsive mode, the healthy plant
population reaches above 150 plants (approximately) in 100 days time
period.
In case of infected plants, the population decreases but not less than 65
plants in 100 days time span if we apply the optimal control approach. The
infected population becomes stable below 10 days in case of spraying
through impulsive mode and goes to the extinction near about 10 days with
the spraying of 80% eectiveness.
For optimal control approach, the infected vector population is reduced
sharply but does not go to extinction in 100 days span. On the other hand,
this population becomes extinct within more or less 10 days in case of
spraying by impulsive method.
CONCLUDINg REMARkS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Jatropha Curcas plant is one of the miracle plants with a diversity of

presentations and various eco-potential ability.
The Jatropha plants are highly aected by the mosaic virus that is carried
through infected white-ies (act as vector), causing a great loss in socioeconomic gesture of our environment.
To protect this natural resource, we try to reduce or control the vector
population through spraying of insecticide Insecticidal Soap.
We can also conclude that the insecticide spraying through impulsive mode
is much more eective rather than the optimal control approach through
spraying of Insecticidal Soap.
It is established here that if we can spray the insecticide with an
eectiveness 80%, the infected plant and vector population both are
decreased in more rapid time compared to the eectiveness of insecticide
30%.
Concluding REMARkS
6. At the same time the healthy Jatropha Curcas plant population is going to be
enhanced for the spraying of insecticide at 80% eectiveness.
7. The eectiveness of the insecticide (Insecticidal Soap) spraying improves the
system towards the increasing of healthy and reducing of infected population.
8. If we communicate our research ndings in the infected zone, then a new
prospect will come in front to ght against white-ies in the global worldwide
viewpoint.
References
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Research is supported by the UGC Major

Research Project, F. No. 41-768/2012 (SR),
dated: 18 July 2012.
Robust modeling of periodic autoregressive time

series
Eugen Ursu
Jean-Christophe Pereau
(Universit de Bordeaux)
Natural Resources Modeling - Vilnius
July 811, 2014
1 / 22
The case study : the Garonne river
The third largest river in France in terms of flow

The main contributor to the Gironde Estuary with 60% of the total
water flux
July 811, 2014
2 / 22
mc/s
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Mean monthly flows of Garonne river (1959-2010)
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
time
Issues : water resources planning, irrigation management, flood

and drought control, estuarine biodiversity
Identification and estimation of the underlying periodic process ?
Presence of observations with recording errors (outliers) ?
Need of robust modeling of river flows
July 811, 2014
3 / 22
Outline
Periodic Autoregressive (PAR) Models
Robust estimation
Identification of PAR models using genetic algorithms
The case study
July 811, 2014
4 / 22
Periodic autoregressive processes
Y = {Yt , t Z} : a periodic autoregressive (PAR(p1 , p2 , . . . , ps ))

stochastic process such that Yns+ is the realization of Y during
the th season, with {1, . . . , s}, at year n, n Z
p()
Yns+ =
(1)
k ()Yns+k + ns+
k =1
Example : for s = 12, Y38 means Y3.12+2 with n = 3 and = 2

= {t , t Z} : zero mean periodic white noise with E(t ) = 0 and
var(ns+ ) = 2 () > 0
July 811, 2014
5 / 22
PAR estimation
Consider Yns+ with n = 0, 1, .., N 1 and = 1, .., s.
The PAR model (1) is reformulated as :
z() = X()() + e()
where () the (p() 1) vector of model parameters
>
() = 1 (), . . . , p() ()
with the (N 1) vectors
z()
e()
>
Y , Ys+ , . . . , Y(N1)s+
>
, s+ , . . . , (N1)s+
and the N {p()} random matrices
Y1
Y2
Y
Y
s+1
s+2
X() =
..
.
Y(N1)s+1
Y(N1)s+2
...
...
..
.
Yp()
Ys+p()
..
.
...
Y(N1)s+p()
July 811, 2014
6 / 22
Least squares estimation with linear constraints on

parameters.
Assume that, for a known matrix R() of rank K (), and a known
(p() 1) vector b(), the following relation is satisfied :
() = R()() + b()
where () is a (K () 1) vector of unknown parameters.
Then it implies that
Matrices R() and vectors b() allow for linear constraints on the
parameters of the same season
It is possible to find the least squares estimator ()

of () and to
determine its asymptotic distribution.
July 811, 2014
7 / 22
Robust estimation of PAR models with additive outliers

The least squares estimators may be seriously affected when
observations are taken from the process
Yns+ + Wns+
where Yns+ is the PAR process and Wns+ is a contaminating process
such that
P(Wns+ = 0) = 1
P(Wns+ = d) = .
That is a PAR process with probability 1 and a PAR process plus
an error with probability
July 811, 2014
8 / 22
Robust estimation of PAR models

To reduce the influence of the residuals suspected to be outliers, we
substitute the residuals
p()
X
Yns+
k ()Yns+k , ns + > p(),
ns+ =
k =1
0,
ns + p(),
by their modified residuals ns+ :

ns+ =
ns+
()
with
() the robust estimator of () and the Huber function :
H,k (x) = sgn(x) min {|x|, k }
where k is a constant and sgnx is the signum function.
July 811, 2014
9 / 22
Impact of additive outliers

Example

Consider the PAR (1, 2), (2, 4), (1, 2, 3), (6, 7) models
Y4n+1 = 1 (1)Y4n + 2 (1)Y4n1 + 4n+1
Y4n+2 = 2 (2)Y4n + 4 (2)Y4n2 + 4n+2
Y4n+3 = 1 (3)Y4n+2 + 2 (3)Y4n+1 + 3 (3)Y4n + 4n+3
Y4n+4 = 6 (4)Y4n2 + 7 (4)Y4n3 + 4n+4 ,
with the parameters
=1
=2
=3
=4
1
0.30
0
-0.80
0
2
0.50
-0.65
0.30
0
3
0
0
0.35
0
4
0
0.50
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0.81
7
0
0
0
0.70
July 811, 2014
10 / 22
RA performs better than LS

Example
The estimation procedure is applied to 1000 independent simulations
with N = 300 observations by period.
Contamination
d =0
Parameters
1 (1) = 0.30
2 (1) = 0.50
2 (2) = 0.65
4 (2) = 0.50
1 (3) = 0.80
2 (3) = 0.30
3 (3) = 0.35
6 (4) = 0.81
7 (4) = 0.70
Estimate
Mean
MSE
LS
RA
LS
RA
LS
RA
LS
RA
LS
RA
LS
RA
LS
RA
LS
RA
LS
RA
0.2999
0.2990
0.4988
0.4980
-0.6500
-0.6508
0.4992
0.4985
-0.8016
-0.8010
0.3006
0.2993
0.3493
0.3499
0.8099
0.8107
0.6991
0.6984
0.0317
0.0332
0.0243
0.0255
0.0331
0.0337
0.0349
0.0361
0.0431
0.0442
0.0378
0.0392
0.0385
0.0401
0.0352
0.0361
0.0371
0.0384
d =5
d = 10
Mean
MSE
Mean
0.2685
0.2887
0.4685
0.4893
-0.5809
-0.6326
0.4368
0.4800
-0.7171
-0.7957
0.2994
0.2964
0.3612
0.3432
0.6909
0.7827
0.5837
0.6708
0.0474
0.0355
0.0437
0.0289
0.0817
0.0405
0.0756
0.0431
0.1080
0.0487
0.0496
0.0422
0.0532
0.0432
0.1297
0.0482
0.1275
0.0514
0.2053
0.2849
0.4000
0.4876
-0.4457
-0.6278
0.3216
0.4761
-0.5731
-0.8044
0.2780
0.2946
0.3526
0.3381
0.4909
0.7751
0.3958
0.6656
MSE
0.1051
0.0375
0.1109
0.0302
0.2161
0.0439
0.1872
0.0459
0.2572
0.0519
0.0772
0.0437
0.0860
0.0464
0.3291
0.0543
0.3132
0.0557
July 811, 2014
11 / 22
Selection criteria for PAR models

Parameters for one unspecified season can be estimated entirely
independently of the parameters of any other season.
1
The BIC criterion is used to obtain a separate criterion for each

period.
s
X
BIC(),
BIC =
=1
with
log(N)
p(),
N
where ns+ , denotes the residuals of the adjustment,
() is the
least squares estimators of (), and p() is the number of
autoregressive parameters in season .
BIC() = log
2 () +
Genetic algorithms
July 811, 2014
12 / 22
Genetic algorithms (GA)
GA are stochastic optimization algorithms based on natural selection

and genetic mechanisms.
Start with an initial population of potential solutions
(chromosomes) arbitrarily chosen.
Evaluate their relative performance (fitness).
Create a new population based on solutions taken from one
population using simple evolutionary operators : selection,
crossover and mutation. This new population will be better than
the old one.
Continue this cycle until finding a satisfactory solution.
July 811, 2014
13 / 22
String representation for chromosome

Identification is made period by period
For a given period, one gene is associated to each possible lag :
filling it with 1 if the parameter is free, and with 0 if the parameter
is constrained to zero.
For the model
Y4n+1 = 1 (1)Y4n + 2 (1)Y4n1 + 4n+1
the chromosome is chrs = (1100000)
For the model
Y4n+2 = 2 (2)Y4n + 4 (2)Y4n2 + 4n+2
the chromosome is chrs = (0101000)
The problem is reduced to the use of an independent GA for each
period.
The structure of the genetic algorithms depends on the choice of a
maximum possible order for each period.
July 811, 2014
14 / 22
Simulations experiments
The selection algorithm is applied to 100 independent simulations with
N = 300 observations by period. Jump to model
The seasonal order vary from 0 to 15 (the length of the chromosome is
L = 15). The size of the GA population is Np = 40, the crossover
probability Pc = 0.8, the mutation probability Pm = 0.05, the number of
generations is Ng = 50 and the number of elite individuals is 1.
TABLE : Frequencies of correct model selection using GA algorithm for the
fourth season (random contamination)
d
d =0
d =5
d = 10
Classic
GA
Robust
GA
0.93
0.51
0.16
0.90
0.87
0.87
July 811, 2014
15 / 22
Garonne river time series
500
500
mc/s
1000
1500
2000
The time series of mean monthly flows of the Garonne river at

Tonneins, France from January 1959 to December 2010 include 624
observations.
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
year
July 811, 2014
16 / 22
1500
2000
1000
Garonne river flows
2500
3000
Detection of outliers
500
10
11
12
Period
July 811, 2014
17 / 22
Garonne identification
The last year or 12 observations are omitted from the data set. GA is
run for 50 generations with parameters L = 15, Np = 40, Pc = 0.8,
Pm = 0.05 and with one elite individual (giving 4 105 possible models)
=1
=2
=3
=4
=5
=6
=7
=8
=9
= 10
= 11
= 12
un-robust
(1,15)
(1,6)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1,8)
(1)
(1)
(1,2,3,6,10,11)
(1,4,5,8,15)
(1,8,11)
robust
(1)
(1,6)
(1)
(1,10)
(1,4)
(1)
(1,8,11)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1,4,5,8,15)
(1,8,11)
TABLE : Identified orders for Garonne river flows
July 811, 2014
18 / 22
800
Predictions over 2010
600
700
201011
201012
300
400
mc/s
500
200
100
201001
observed
robust forecast
forecast
201002
201003
201004
201005
201006
201007
201008
201009
201010
yearmonth
July 811, 2014
19 / 22
Predictions
To evaluate the forecast accuracy we compute the following
measures : mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), median absolute
percentage error (MdAPE), mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean
square error (RMSE).
Garonne
criterion unrobustified robustified
MAPE
26.847
22.543
MdAPE
28.374
16.745
MAE
94.305
93.240
RMSE
126.663
119.332
TABLE : Accuracy of forecasts of Garonne river flows.
These criteria have to be interpreted only as an indication to which

model perform better, but no statement can be made from this
comparison.
July 811, 2014
20 / 22
Conclusion
an automatic method for identifying PAR models is proposed (that

brings together a LS estimation with a GA) ;
when there are outliers, the proposed robust estimators performed
better than the LS estimators ;
all the results were obtained in the multivariate case ;
future research is needed to analyse the impact of another types
of outliers (patches of outliers) ;
July 811, 2014
21 / 22
References
E. Ursu and J.C. Pereau (2014), Robust modeling of periodic

vector autoregressive time series (accepted to Journal of
Statistical Planning and Inference)
E. Ursu and K.F. Turkman (2012), Periodic autoregressive model
identification using genetic algorithms, Journal of Time Series
Analysis ;
M.G. Ben, E.J. Martinez and V. Yohai (1999), Robust estimation in
vector autoregressive moving-average models, Journal of Time
Series Analysis.
July 811, 2014
22 / 22

Day1 Session1

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Day1 Session1

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Some Mathematical Theory for

World Conference on Resource Modeling

Graphs of the sigmoidal function (z) (left) and (32z) (right).

Graphs of the sigmoidal function (z) (left) and (32z) (right).

in terms of a logit (loglinear form of Bayes formula)

Weights-of-evidence vs logistic regression

Logistic regression for binary predictors

Weights-of-evidence vs logistic regression

Logistic regression for binary predictors

In case of conditional independence of B given T

Artificial Neural Nets

Cartoon of a single hidden layer ANN from

minimization of the sum of squared residuals is referred to as

Artificial neural networks vs. regression (1)

input: predictor variables B;

first layer: linear combinations Aj , j = 1, . . . , J, of the

hidden layer: each of them is subject to a transformation

second layer: linear combinations Aj , k = 1, . . . , K of hidden

output: each of them is subject to an activation function S,

Artificial neural networks vs. regression (2)

[input unit] activations:

output unit activations: Ak

Artificial neural networks vs. regression (3)

which is logistic regression.

Example with fabricated data - Training set

Spatial distribution of two binary predictor variables B1 , B2 , and

Example with fabricated data - Training set

The indicator predictor variables B1 and B2 seem to be

Example with fabricated data - Training set

The significance test of conditional independence referring to a

Example with fabricated data - Training set

Testing if the interaction term B1 B2 enlarges the model

Example with fabricated data - Training set

Example with fabricated data - Training set

Example with fabricated data - Training set

WofE for rankit

Example with fabricated data - Training set

Logistic regression model without interaction terms

Then the logistic regression model without interaction terms reads

Example with fabricated data - Training set

logreg without interaction term for rankit

Example with fabricated data - Training set

The enlarged logistic regression model reads explicitly

and confirms that it compensates exactly for the lack of

Example with fabricated data - Training set

logreg with interaction term for rankit

Example with fabricated data - Training set

b = 1) = 1.8152 the 3 term

Example with fabricated data - Training set

Wof3E for rankit

Example with fabricated data - Training set

All models at a glance

(2.726 + 1.725 B1 + 1.349 B2 ) ,

(2.765 + 1.725 B1 + 1.349 B2 +0.755 B1 B2 ) ,

(2.831 + 1.874 B1 + 1.535 B2 ) ,

(3.434 + 2.923 B1 + 2.646 B2 3.233 B1 B2 ) .

Example with fabricated data - Training set

Spatial distribution of two binary predictor variables B1 , B2 , and

WofE for rankit

Wof3E for rankit

Example with fabricated data - Training set

Spatial distribution of two binary predictor variables B1 , B2 , and