4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Classification of challenging Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy soil sample data - EMSLIBS contest

Journal

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.sab.2020.105872

Keywords

EMSLIBS contest; Chemometrics; Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS); Machine learning; Classification benchmark

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic under the project CEITEC 2020 [LQ1601]
  2. CEITEC Nano Research Infrastructure (MEYS CR)
  3. CEITEC Nano+ project [CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_013/0001728]
  4. German ministry of education and research (BMBF) in the project PLUS [033R181]
  5. German federal state of Brandenburg
  6. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (ERDF 2014-2020)
  7. economic development agency Brandenburg (WFBB) in the LIBSqORE project [80172489]
  8. DRDO, India

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present results of the classification contest organized for the EMSLIBS 2019 conference. For this publication, we chose only the five best approaches and discussed their algorithm in detail. The main focus of the contest reflected both recent and long-term challenges of Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS) data processing. The contest was designed with a purpose to raise a challenge in handling and processing a very large dataset, containing high-dimensional elemental spectra. For the contest, 138 samples were measured using a lab-based LIBS system. In total, the data set consisted of 70,000 spectra, separated into 12 classes according to their elemental composition. Due to its extensivity and complexity, the data set is unique within the LIBS community. The central idea was to simulate the so-called out-of-sample classification (i.e. according to similar elemental composition), implying various real-world applications. Even more, it reflects the current level of expertise in the LIBS community and the capability of the LIBS method itself.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available