Automatica 42 (2006) 315 – 320

www.elsevier.com/locate/automatica

Brief paper
Closed-loop subspace identification using the parity space夡
Jin Wanga , S. Joe Qinb,∗
a Advanced Process Control, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Austin, TX 78741, USA
b Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA

Received 10 December 2003; received in revised form 17 February 2005; accepted 13 September 2005

Abstract
It is known that many subspace algorithms give biased estimates for closed-loop data due to the existence of feedback. In this paper we
present a new subspace identification method using the parity space employed in fault detection in the past. The basic algorithm, known as
subspace identification method via principal component analysis (SIMPCA), gives consistent estimation of the deterministic part and stochastic
part of the system under closed loop. Column weighting for SIMPCA is introduced which shows improved efficiency/accuracy. A simulation
example is given to illustrate the performance of the proposed algorithm in closed-loop identification and the effect of column weighting.
䉷 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Subspace identification; Closed-loop identification; Consistency analysis; Parity space; Instrumental variables

1. Introduction which can be applied to errors-in-variables and closed-loop

Subspace identification methods (SIMs) have been one of
the main streams of research in system identification (Gevers,
2003). However, due to the correlation between the input and
the unmeasured disturbance under feedback control, many sub-
space algorithms do not work on closed-loop data (Forssell &
Ljung, 1999; Ljung & McKelvey, 1996), even though the data
satisfy identifiability conditions for prediction error methods.
This problem comes from a step in most SIMs that projects
the future output on the orthogonal complement of the fu-
ture input, which requires the future input to be uncorrelated
to the past noise. To address this aspect, several algorithms
for closed-loop identification have been developed in the last
few years. Ljung and McKelvey (1996) presented a subspace
identification method through the classical realization path us-
ing estimated predictors based on ARX models. Chou and
Verhaegen (1997) developed an instrumental variable method
夡 This paper was not presented at any IFAC meeting. This paper was
recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor Brett
Ninness under the direction of Editor Torsten Soederstroem.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 512 471 4417; fax: +1 512 471 7060.
E-mail addresses: jin.wang@amd.com (J. Wang), qin@che.utexas.edu
(S.J. Qin).
0005-1098/$ - see front matter 䉷 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2005.09.012
identification problem, but it handles white-noise input differ-
ently from correlated input. Qin, Lin, and Ljung (2005) and Qin
and Ljung (2003b) pointed out the non-causal projection in tra-
ditional SIMs and proposed a closed-loop identification method
through innovation estimation (Qin & Ljung, 2003a). In the
meantime Jansson (2003) proposed to use high order ARX to
pre-estimate the system Markov parameters and then estimate
the observability matrix, thus avoiding the non-causal projec-
tion. Chiuso and Picci (2005) provided consistency analysis of
the methods in Qin and Ljung (2003a) and Jansson (2003), and
considered them as significant progresses in closed-loop SIM.
In parallel, Wang and Qin (2001, 2002) proposed the use
of parity space and principal component analysis (SIMPCA)
for errors-in-variables identification with colored input excita-
tion, which can also be applied to closed-loop identification.
Instead of pre-estimating the Markov parameters or eliminat-
ing them via non-causal projections, SIMPCA reformulates the
SIM problem in parity space. Huang, Ding, and Qin (2005)
developed a new closed-loop subspace identification algorithm
(SOPIM) by adopting the EIV model structure of SIMPCA,
and proposed a revised instrumental variable method to avoid
identifying the parity space of the feedback controller.
In this paper we present a new SIMPCA algorithm that iden-
tifies the process model and noise model in the same framework
316 J. Wang, S.J. Qin / Automatica 42 (2006) 315 – 320

with appropriate column weighting, referred to as SIMPCA-
Wc. Then we discuss the persistent excitation condition for
SIMPCA for closed-loop data. We further investigate the rela-
tionship between SOPIM (Huang et al., 2005) and SIMPCA.
It is shown that the column space of the observability matrix
extracted from SOPIM is equivalent to that from SIMPCA-Wc.
The remaining parts of the paper are organized as follows.
Section 2 gives the problem formulation and assumptions.
Section 3 briefly reviews the original SIMPCA algorithm
(deterministic part) and presents the estimation of stochastic
part. Section 4 presents the SIMPCA with column weighting
(SIMPCA-Wc). Section 5 gives a simulation example. The
final section concludes the paper.
2. Problem formulation and assumptions
Consider the linear time-invariant system in its innovation
representation:
By iterating the system equations, it is straightforward to get
the extended state-space model,
Y f =
f Xk + H f Uf + G f E f , (8)
where
Xk = [x(k) x(k + 1) . . . x(k + N − 1)] ∈ Rn×N .

f is the extended observability matrix with rank n, Hf and Gf
are two Toeplitz matrices as defined in Wang and Qin (2002).
3. SIMPCA for estimating the deterministic and stochastic
parts
In this section, we briefly review the original SIMPCA al-
gorithm and discuss the persistent excitation condition. Then
we use the SIMPCA model structure to estimate the stochastic
model part, namely, the Kalman gain and innovation covariance
under closed-loop conditions.

x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + Bu(k) + Ke(k), (1) 3.1. Estimation of the deterministic part

y(k) = Cx(k) + Du(k) + e(k). (2) Instead of focusing on the observable subspace, SIMPCA
focuses on the parity space, which is commonly used in fault
Here, x(k) ∈ Rn is the state vector, u(k) ∈ Rl and y(k) ∈ Rm detection (Chow & Willsky, 1984). Pre-multiplying Eq. (8) with
are the measured input and output signals. e(k) ∈ Rm is the (
⊥f ) , the orthogonal complement of
f with full column
T
innovation process. We introduce the following assumptions: rank, and moving the input term to the left-hand side, Eq. (8)
becomes
A1: (A, C) is observable.
A2: (A, [B K]) is controllable. (
⊥ T ⊥ T
f ) [I | −Hf ]Zf = (
f ) Gf Ef , (9)
A3: The input u and innovation e are jointly stationary and
where Zf ≡ [YfT UfT ]T . Note that Eq. (9) is known as the parity
one-way uncorrelated, i.e.,
space in the fault detection literature.
To eliminate the effect of noise asymptotically, Wang and
Ē[e(k)e(l)T ] = Re
kl , (3) Qin (2001, 2002) propose to use instrumental variables that are
not correlated to Ef but most correlated to Zf . Observing that
Ē[e(k)u(l)T ] = 0, k > l, (4) 1 1
lim Ef ZTp = lim Ef [YpT UpT ] = 0 (10)
N→∞ N N→∞ N
where Ē is defined as in Ljung (1999):
because of Assumption A3, the past input and output Zp are
1
N

suitable instrumental variables. Using ZTp as instrumental vari-
Ē{•} = lim E{•}. (5) ables for Eq. (9), we have
N→∞ N
k=1
1 ⊥ T
lim (
f ) [I − Hf ]Zf ZTp = 0. (11)
We define the past and future vectors and Hankel matrices in N→∞ N
the following way:
Therefore, (
⊥
f ) [I − Hf ] is in the left null space of
T

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ limN→∞ (1/N )Zf ZTp . If we perform PCA on

y(k − p) y(k)
⎢ y(k − p + 1) ⎥ ⎢ y(k + 1) ⎥
yp (k) = ⎢
⎣ .. ⎥,
⎦ yf (k) = ⎢
⎣ .. ⎥,
⎦
1
Zf ZTp = PTT + P̃T̃T (12)
. . N
y(k − 1) y(k + f − 1) and select the number of principal components such that
limN→∞ T̃ = 0, where P and P̃ are mutually orthogonal, we
Yp = [yp (k) yp (k + 1) . . . yp (k + N − 1)], (6)
obtain
Yf = [yf (k) yf (k + 1) . . . yf (k + N − 1)], (7) (
⊥
f ) [I − Hf ] = MP̃ ,
T T
(13)

where p is the past horizon and f is the future horizon. The input where M ∈ R(mf −n)×(mf −n) is an arbitrary non-singular
data Up , Uf and the innovation Ef are formulated similarly. matrix.
 J. Wang, S.J. Qin / Automatica 42 (2006) 315 – 320 317

Partitioning P̃ according to the output and input variables, where

Eq. (13) then becomes ⎡ ⎤
F 0 ··· 0
  ⎢ CKF F ··· 0⎥

⊥f P̃y Gf∗ = ⎢ .. .. .. . ⎥ ∈ Rmf ×mf . (18)
= P̃M =
T
MT . (14) ⎣ . . . .. ⎦
−HfT
⊥
f P̃u
CAf −2 KF CAf −3 KF ··· F
After the parity space is identified,
f , Hf , A, B, C and D can With Assumption A2, the state Xk can be represented as (see,
be estimated following Wang and Qin (2002). Note that column e.g., Qin & Ljung, 2003a),
weighting can be applied to Eq. (12),
p
Xk = Lz Zp + AK Xk−p (19)
1
Zf ZTp Wc = PTT + P̃T̃T , (15) p−1 p−2 p−1 p−2
N with Lz = [AK K, AK K, . . . , K, AK B, AK B, . . . , B] is
the reversed controllability matrix and AK = A − KC. With a
where Wc is a non-singular weighting matrix with appropriate p
sufficient large p, AK → 0 for A − KC is stable. Therefore,
dimensions. The application of column weighting does improve Xk can be approximated with Lz Zp and Eq. (16) becomes
the performance of SIMPCA, as depicted in Huang et al. (2005)
and in the next section of this paper. Yf − Ĥf Uf =
f Lz Zp + Gf∗ Ef∗ . (20)
In order to obtain consistent estimation under the noise-
corrupted condition, we must guarantee that (1/N )Zf ZTp has Since Ef∗ is independent of Zp , projecting Eq. (20) on Z⊥
p leads
(mf −n) zero singular values asymptotically. To guarantee that to
(1/N )Zf ZTp has no more than (mf − n) zero singular values
when N approaches infinity, an input excitation condition is Ĝf∗ Êf∗ = (Yf − Ĥf Uf )/Z⊥
p, (21)
needed, which is stated in the following lemma.
which is a least-squares estimate of the residual. Similar to
Verhaegen (1994) and Van Overschee and De Moor (1994), the
Lemma 1. Given Assumptions A1–A3 and p
f > n, if
least-squares projection can be implemented using QR factor-

  ization:
x(k)    T
Ē z (k) T
uf (k) p 1 Zp R11 0 Q1
√ = T . (22)
N Y f − Ĥ U
f f R21 R 22 Q 2
has full row rank, then (1/N )Zf ZTp has (mf − n) zero singular
It follows directly from Eq. (21) that
values asymptotically, where zp (k)T = [yp (k)T up (k)T ].
1
R22 QT2 = √ Ĝf∗ Êf∗ . (23)
Proof. See Appendix A.  N
√
To satisfy the lemma uf (k) cannot be independent of zp (k), Because Q2 is an orthonormal matrix, we choose Êf∗ = N QT2
which rules out the possibility of white noise. Since SIMPCA and Ĝf∗ = R22 . Here Gf∗ and R22 are both lower triangular due
works in the parity space or null space, we need to make sure to the QR factorization.
that no additional zero singular values exist other than the pro- Denoting the first block column of Gf∗ by Gf∗ 1 ,
cess null space. Huang et al. (2005) show that (1/N )Zf ZTp has
⎡ ⎤
additional zero singular values due to the existence of a linear F
feedback controller if the perturbation signal r(k) is white and ⎢ CKF ⎥
independent of zp (k). Huang et al. (2005) propose a revised Gf∗ 1 = ⎢
⎣ .. ⎥
⎦
.
instrumental variable to overcome this problem. CAf −2 KF
 
Im 0 F
= ˆ f (1 : m(f − 1), :) KF . (24)
3.2. Estimation of K and innovation covariance Re 0

After Hf is estimated in the deterministic step, Eq. (8) can KF and F can be estimated as
be rearranged as   †
F̂ Im 0 ∗
 = ˆ f (1 : m(f − 1), :) Gf 1 , (25)
KF 0

Yf − Ĥf Uf =
f Xk + Gf Ef . (16)
where [•]† is the Moore–Penrose pseudo-inverse. Finally,
In order to identify the noise covariance, we denote e(k) =
Fe∗ (k) such that Ē(e∗ (k)e∗ (k + )T ) = I
 and the covariance  F̂−1
K̂ = (KF) (26)
Re = FFT . Therefore,
and
Gf Ef = Gf∗ Ef∗ , (17)
R̂e = F̂F̂T . (27)
318 J. Wang, S.J. Qin / Automatica 42 (2006) 315 – 320

4. SIMPCA with column weighting column weighting in closed-loop identification. Results from
SIMPCA, N4SID with CVA weighting from the Matlab Sys-
Like other subspace identification methods, SIMPCA also tem Identification Toolbox (version 6.5) (denoted as N4SID-
uses SVD or PCA to obtain the observability matrix first. WCV A ), MOESP-PO and SIMPCA-Wc are presented for com-
It is thus of great interest to optimize the estimate of the parison. The simulation example is a first order SISO system
observability matrix. One direction is to apply a weight- under closed-loop operation,
ing matrix to improve the estimate. Several contributions in
the literature have appeared in this area (Gustafsson, 2002; y(k) − 0.9y(k − 1) = u(k − 1) + e(k) + 0.9e(k − 1). (31)
Jansson & Wahlberg, 1996; Viberg, Wahlberg, & Ottersten, The feedback has the following structure:
1997). Gustafsson (2002) pointed out that although different
approaches of analysis were adopted, the column weightings u(k) = −y(k) + r(k), (32)
in Jansson and Wahlberg (1996) and Verhaegen (1994) all
where  = 0.6 for closed-loop operations. The excitation signal
correspond to the CVA weighting of Larimore (1983).
r(k) is a moving average process:
Because SIMPCA also picks the subspace by performing
SVD (PCA) on process data and instrumental variables are ap- r(k) = (1 + 0.8q −1 + 0.6q −2 )r0 (k), (33)
plied to remove noise, it would be beneficial to scale the instru-
mental variables to unit variance. SIMPCA does not remove where r0 (k) is zero mean white noise with unit variance. The
the future input and the generalized instrumental variable is just process innovation e(k) is zero mean white noise with standard
past data Zp . In this case, the “optimal” column weighting is deviation e = 1.2. Monte-Carlo experiments are conducted
simply ((1/N )Zp ZTp )−1/2 , denoted as Wc , which is the same with 50 runs.
weighting applied in IV-4SID (Viberg, 1995). We compare results from all four different algorithms.
In summary, SIMPCA with column weighting, denoted as Mean and variance of the estimated poles (true value
SIMPCA-Wc, is based on the following equation: 0.9) from different methods are summarized as follows:
−1/2
1 ⊥ T 1 Mean Variance
(
f ) [I | −Hf ]Zf ZTp Zp ZTp
N N N4SID-WCV A 0.6666 7.068 × 10−5
1 1.229 × 10−4
= √ (
⊥ T −1/2
f ) Gf Ef Zp (Zp Zp )
T T
. (28) MOESP-PO 0.5907
N SIMPCA 0.8755 2.725 × 10−3
The right-hand side of (28) goes to zero as N → ∞ SIMPCA-Wc 0.8999 1.720 × 10−4
due√to Assumption A3. Therefore, performing PCA on Fig. 1 shows the Bode plot of the identified system. Not
(1/ N)Zf ZTp (Zp ZTp )−1/2 can extract the residual subspace surprisingly, N4SID-WCVA and MOESP-PO give biased
which contains the system information. The remaining steps estimates, while estimates from SIMPCA group are unbi-
in SIMPCA-Wc to estimate A, B, C, D, K and Re are the ased. We also plot the asymptotic performance of different
same as in SIMPCA. Simulation results show that the column methods under closed-loop in Fig. 2, which confirms that
weighting matrix ((1/N )Zp ZTp )−1/2 can significantly improve SIMPCA-Wc is more efficient than SIMPCA without column
estimate accuracy, as shown in Section 5. weighting. For the stochastic part, since the Kalman gain K
Huang et al. (2005) proposed a projection based on the SIM-
PCA structure for closed-loop identification, where the parity Bode Diagram
space is projected onto the row space of past data, 20
true
15 SIMPCA

(
⊥
f ) [I
T
− Hf ]Zf ZTp = (
⊥
f ) Gf Ef ZTp ,
T
Magnitude (dB)

CVA
(29) 10
SIMPCA-Wc
MOESP

5
where ZTp = ZTp (Zp ZTp )−1 Zp and the right-hand side tends
0
to zero when N goes to infinity. PCA is then performed on
-5
Zf ZTp which is equivalent to an eigendecomposition of
-10
[Zf ZTp ][Zf ZTp ]T . It is straightforward to show that 0

[Zf ZTp ][Zf ZTp ]T = [Zf ZTp Wc ][Zf ZTp Wc ]T . (30) -45
Phase (deg)

-90
Therefore, the projection based method in Huang et al. (2005)
is equivalent to SIMPCA-Wc. -135

-180
5. Simulation study
10-2 10-1 100
Frequency (rad/sec)
In this section a simulation study is presented to demon-
strate the performance of SIMPCA algorithm and the effect of Fig. 1. Bode plot of the identified system for the closed-loop case.
 J. Wang, S.J. Qin / Automatica 42 (2006) 315 – 320 319

100 Acknowledgements

Financial support from National Science Foundation under

10 -1 CTS-9985074 and an Overseas Young Investigator Award from
NSF China (60228001) is gratefully acknowledged.

10-2 Appendix A
MSE

Proof of Lemma 1. From the extended state-space model Eq.

10-3 (8), we have
   
SIMPCA Yf
f Hf Xk Gf
CVA Zf = = + Ef . (A.1)
10-4 SIMPCA-Wc
MOESP Uf 0 Ilf Uf 0

Post-multiply ZTp to remove noise,

10-5
102 103 104 105
 
1 1
f Hf Xk
number of samples lim Zf ZTp = lim ZTp
N→∞ N N→∞ N 0 Ilf Uf
  
Fig. 2. Mean squared error of pole estimate versus number of samples for
f Hf x(k)
closed-loop identification. = Ē zp (k)T . (A.2)
0 Ilf uf (k)

Because
depends on the state realization, we examine the estimates of 
F (true value 1.2) and the zero of the system [C, A, K, I] (true
f Hf
f > n, rank(
f ) = n and
value −0.9) to test the accuracy of the identified innovation 0 Ilf
dynamics. Mean and variance of the identified zero of the
stochastic part and F from SIMPCA-Wc and N4SID-WCVA has full column rank, which is lf + n. Therefore, if
are summarized as follows, which shows that SIMPCA-Wc  
x(k)
gives a good estimate of stochastic part under closed-loop. Ē z (k) T
uf (k) p
SIMPCA-Wc N4SID-WCVA has full row rank, rank((1/N )Zf ZTp ) is lf +n as N → ∞. 
Zero Mean −0.8876 −0.5304
Variance 1.082 × 10−4 6.5847 × 10−5 References

F Mean 1.2051 – Chiuso, A., & Picci, G. (2005). Consistency analysis of some closed-loop
Variance 2.110 × 10−4 – subspace identification methods. Automatica, 41, 377–391.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, a complete closed-loop subspace identification
algorithm is developed using the parity space with appropriate
column weighting. Persistent excitation condition of SIMPCA
is given. Because SIMPCA makes use of the parity space to
estimate the system model and avoids projecting out the future
input, it is applicable to closed-loop identification. By scaling
the instrumental variables to unit variance, SIMPCA-Wc sig-
nificantly improves the estimate accuracy. The equivalence be-
tween SIMPCA-Wc and the projection based method in Huang
et al. (2005) is derived.
As pointed out in Huang et al. (2005), white input perturba-
tion may cause problems for SIMPCA because the controller
will increase the dimension of the left null space of Zf ZTp ,
which will make the estimate from SIMPCA biased. A rem-
edy is proposed in Huang et al. (2005). By including the input
perturbation as part of the instrumental variable, it is guaran-
teed that the left null space of Zf ZTp coincides with the process
dynamics.
Chou, C. T., & Verhaegen, M. (1997). Subspace algorithms for
the identification of multivariable dynamic errors-in-variables models.
Automatica, 33(10), 1857–1869.
Chow, E. Y., & Willsky, A. S. (1984). Analytical redundancy and the design of
robust failure detection systems. IEEE Transactions of Automatic Control,
AC-29(7), 603–614.
Forssell, U., & Ljung, L. (1999). Closed-loop identification revisited.
Automatica, 35, 1215–1241.
Gevers, M. (2003). A personal view on the development of system
identification, In Proceedings of 13th IFAC symposium on system
identification (pp. 773–784). Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Gustafsson, T. (2002). Subspace-based system identification: Weighting and
pre-filtering of instruments. Automatica, 38, 433–443.
Huang, B., Ding, S., & Qin, S. J. (2005). Closed-loop subspace identification:
An orthogonal projection approach. Journal of Process Control, 15(1),
53–66.
Jansson, M. (2003). Subspace identification and ARX modelling. In
Proceedings of the 13th IFAC symposium on system identification
(pp. 1625–1630). Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Jansson, M., & Wahlberg, B. (1996). A linear regression approach to state-
space subspace system identification. Signal Processing, 52, 103–129.
Larimore, W. E. (1983). System identification, reduced-order filtering and
modeling via canonical variate analysis. In Proceedings of 1983 American
control conference (pp. 445–451). New York.
Ljung, L. (1999). System identification: Theory for the user. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
320 J. Wang, S.J. Qin / Automatica 42 (2006) 315 – 320
Ljung, L., & McKelvey, T. (1996). Subspace identification from closed loop
data. Signal Processing, 52, 209–215.
Qin, S. J., Lin, W., & Ljung, L. (2005). A novel subspace identification
approach with enforced causal models. Automatica, 41(12), 2043–2053.
Qin, S. J., & Ljung, L. (2003a). Closed-loop subspace identification with
innovation estimation. In Proceedings of the 13th IFAC symposium on
system identification (pp. 887–892). Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Qin, S. J., & Ljung, L. (2003b). Parallel QR implementation of subspace
identification with parsimonious models. In Proceedings of the 13th
IFAC symposium on system identification (pp. 1631–1636). Rotterdam,
Netherlands.
Van Overschee, P., & De Moor, B. (1994). N4SID: Subspace algorithms for the
identification of combined deterministic-stochastic systems. Automatica,
30, 75–93.
Verhaegen, M. (1994). Identification of the deterministic part of MIMO
state space models given in innovations form from input–output data.
Automatica, 30, 61–74.
Viberg, M. (1995). Subspaced-based methods for the identification of linear
time-invariant systems. Automatica, 31(12), 1835–1851.
Viberg, M., Wahlberg, B., & Ottersten, B. (1997). Analysis of state space
system identification methods based on instrumental variables and subspace
fitting. Automatica, 33, 1603–1616.
Wang, J., & Qin, S. J. (2001). Principal component analysis for errors-
in-variables subspace identification. In Proceedings of the 40th IEEE
conference on decision and control (pp. 3934–3941).
Wang, J., & Qin, S. J. (2002). A new subspace identification approach
based on principal component analysis. Journal of Process Control, 12(8),
841–855.
Jin Wang obtained the BS degree in Chemical
Engineering from Tsinghua University in Bei-
jing, China, in 1994. She received the MS and
PhD degrees in Chemical Engineering from the
University of Texas at Austin in 2001 and 2004,
respectively. She is currently a Senior Develop-
ment Engineer with Advanced Process Control
at Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Her research
interests include system identification, control
performance monitoring, semiconductor process
modeling and control, and fault detection and
classification.
S. Joe Qin holds Paul D. and Betty Robertson
Meek and American Petrofina Foundation Cen-
tennial Professorship in Chemical Engineering
at University of Texas at Austin. He obtained his
BS and MS degrees in Automatic Control from
Tsinghua University in Beijing, China, in 1984
and 1987, respectively. He received his PhD de-
gree in Chemical Engineering from University
of Maryland in 1992. He worked as a Princi-
pal Engineer at Fisher-Rosemount from 1992
to 1995 and then joined University of Texas
as a professor. His research interests include system identification, process
monitoring and fault diagnosis, model predictive control, run-to-run control,
microelectronics process control, and control performance monitoring. He is
a recipient of the NSF CAREER Award, DuPont Young Professor Award,
NSF-China Outstanding Young Investigator Award. He was an Editor for
Control Engineering Practice from 1999 to 2005 and is currently a Member
of the Editorial Board for Journal of Chemometrics.