A Machine-Learning Approach to Biosignature Exploration on Early Earth and Mars Using Sulfur Isotope and Trace Element Data in Pyrite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a novel approach to identify the origin of pyrite grains and distinguish biologically influenced sedimentary pyrite using combined in situ sulfur isotope (δ 34 S) and trace element (TE) analyses. To classify and predict the origin of individual pyrite grains, we applied multiple machine-learning algorithms to coupled δ 34 S and TE data from pyrite grains formed from diverse sedimentary, hydrothermal, and metasomatic processes across geologic time. Our unsupervised classification algorithm, K-means++ cluster analysis, yielded six classes based on the formation environment of the pyrite: sedimentary, low temperature hydrothermal, medium temperature, polymetallic hydrothermal, high temperature, and large euhedral. We tested three supervised models (random forest [RF], Naïve Bayes, k-nearest neighbors), and RF outperformed the others in predicting pyrite formation type, achieving a precision (area under the ROC curve) of 0.979 ± 0.005 and an overall average class accuracy of 0.878 ± 0.005. Moreover, we found that coupling TE and δ 34 S data significantly improved the performance of the RF model compared with using either TE or δ 34 S data alone. Our data provide a novel framework for exploring sedimentary rocks that have undergone multiple hydrothermal, magmatic, and metamorphic alterations. Most significant, however, is the demonstrated potential for distinguishing between biogenic and abiotic pyrite in samples from early Earth. This approach could also be applied to the search for potential biosignatures in samples 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".