GRaVN: A Convolutional Network Approach to Generalised Characterisation of Raman Spectra for Space Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During planetary exploration mission operations, one of the key responsibilities of the instrument teams to determine data viability for subsequent analysis. During the 2019 CanMoon Lunar Sample Return Analogue Mission, the Lead Raman Specialist manually examined each spectra to provide quality assurance/validation. This non-trivial process requires years of experience to complete accurately. With the proven efficacy of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) in classification tasks, and the increased use of automation and control loops on planetary space platforms for navigation and science targeting, an opportunity presents itself to approach this validation problem utilising CNNs. We present the Generalised Raman Validation Network (GRaVN), an neural network focused specifically on extracting the generalised structure of Raman spectra for quality assurance/validation. This work demonstrates the viability of utilising a CNN network in validation activities for Raman spectroscopy. Utilising only two hidden layers, a configuration was developed that provided good levels of accuracy on a manually curated dataset. This indicates that such a system could be useful as part of an autonomous control loop during planetary exploration activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".