<scp>Auto‐encoder</scp> neural network incorporating <scp>x‐ray</scp> fluorescence fundamental parameters with machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We consider energy‐dispersive x‐ray fluorescence (XRF) applications where the fundamental parameters method is impractical such as when instrument parameters are unavailable. For example, on a mining shovel or conveyor belt, rocks are constantly moving (leading to varying angles of incidence and distances) and there may be other factors not accounted for (like dust). Neural networks do not require instrument and fundamental parameters but training neural networks requires XRF spectra labeled with elemental composition, which is often limited because of its expense. We develop a neural network model that learns from limited labeled data and also benefits from domain knowledge by learning to invert a forward model. The forward model uses transition energies and probabilities of all elements and parameterized distributions to approximate other fundamental and instrument parameters. We evaluate the model and baseline models on a rock dataset from a lithium mineral exploration project. Our model works particularly well for some low‐Z elements (Li, Mg, Al, and K) as well as some high‐Z elements (Sn and Pb) despite these elements being outside the suitable range for common spectrometers to directly measure, likely owing to the ability of neural networks to learn correlations and nonlinear relationships.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".