Comparison of Spectra Using a Bayesian Approach. An Argument Using Oil Spills as an Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of assigning a probability of matching a number of spectra is addressed. The context is in environmental spills when an EPA needs to show that the material from a polluting spill (e.g., oil) is likely to have originated at a particular site (factory, refinery) or from a vehicle (road tanker or ship). Samples are taken from the spill, and candidate sources and are analyzed by spectroscopy (IR, fluorescence) or chromatography (GC or GC/MS). A matching algorithm is applied to pairs of spectra giving a single statistic (R). This can be a point-to-point match giving a correlation coefficient or a Euclidean distance or a derivative of these parameters. The distributions of R for same and different samples are established from existing data. For matching statistics with values in the range {0,1} corresponding to no match (0) to a perfect match (1) a beta distribution can be fitted to most data. The values of R from the match of the spectrum of a spilled oil and of each of a number of suspects are calculated and Bayes' theorem is applied to give a probability of matches between spill sample and each candidate and the probability of no match at all. The method is most effective when simple inspection of the matching parameters does not lead to an obvious conclusion; i.e., there is overlap of the distributions giving rise to dubiety of an assignment. The probability of finding a matching statistic if there were a match to the probability of finding it if there were no match, expressed as a ratio (called the likelihood ratio), is a sensitive and useful parameter to guide the analyst. It is proposed that this approach may be acceptable to a court of law and avoid challenges of apparently subjective opinion of an analyst. Examples of matching the fluorescence and infrared spectra of diesel oils are given.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".