Progress Toward Machine Learning Methodologies for Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy With an Emphasis on Soil Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optical emission spectroscopy of laser-produced plasmas, commonly known as laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS), is an emerging analytical tool for rapid soil analysis. However, specific challenges with LIBS exist, such as matrix effects and quantification issues, which require further study in the application of LIBS, particularly for the analysis of heterogeneous samples, such as soils. Advancements in the applications of machine learning (ML) methods can address some of these issues, advancing the potential for LIBS in soil analysis. This article aims to review the progress of LIBS application combined with ML methods, focusing on methodological approaches used in reducing matrix effect, feature selection, quantification analysis, soil classification, and self-absorption. The performance of various adopted ML approaches is discussed, including their shortcomings and advantages, to provide researchers with a clear picture of the current status of ML applications in LIBS for improving its analytical capability. The challenges and prospects of LIBS development in soil analysis are proposed, offering a path toward future research. This review article emphasizes ML tools for LIBS soil analysis, which are broadly relevant for other LIBS applications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".