Machine learning methods applied to combined Raman and LIBS spectra: Implications for mineral discrimination in planetary missions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The combined analysis of geological targets by complementary spectroscopic techniques could enhance the characterization of the mineral phases found on Mars. This is indeed the case with the SuperCam instrument onboard the Perseverance rover. In this framework, the present study seeks to evaluate and compare multiple machine learning techniques for the characterization of carbonate minerals based on Raman‐LIBS (Laser‐Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy) spectroscopic data. To do so, a Ca‐Mg prediction curve was created by mixing hydromagnesite and calcite at different concentration ratios. After their characterization by Raman and LIBS spectroscopy, different multivariable machine learning (Gaussian process regression, support vector machines, ensembles of trees, and artificial neural networks) were used to predict the concentration ratio of each sample from their respective datasets. The results obtained by separately analyzing Raman and LIBS data were then compared to those obtained by combining them. By comparing their performance, this work demonstrates that mineral discrimination based on Gaussian and ensemble methods optimized the combine of Raman‐LIBS dataset outperformed those ensured by Raman and LIBS data alone. This demonstrated that the fusion of data combination and machine learning is a promising approach to optimize the analysis of spectroscopic data returned from Mars.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".