Advanced Computational Methods in Spectroscopy: A Q&A Guide

Spectroscopy published an online content series, titled “Unsolved Problems in Spectroscopy,” which explored evolving intersection of advanced computational methods and spectroscopic analysis, focusing on the limitations of traditional linear models. Written by associate editorial director Jerome Workman, Jr., the series examined how statistical power with physical interpretability helped improve accuracy in pharmaceutical, environmental, and industrial applications.

To that end, spectroscopists are routinely embracing complex algorithms to handle high-dimensional, nonlinear, and multimodal data. Why is this happening, and why is this an improvement in spectroscopic analysis? In this Q&A, we address these questions and more, as we explore how advanced computational methods are reshaping spectroscopic analysis and how you might apply these methods in your own work.

Q: Why are researchers moving beyond traditional linear models like partial least squares (PLS)?

A: Although linear methods like PLS have been central to chemometrics, real-world systems often exhibit nonlinear effects that violate linear assumptions.¹ These deviations arise from chemical effects, which include spectral band saturation at high concentrations or hydrogen bonding; physical effects (like scattering in diffuse reflectance); and instrumental artifacts (such as detector nonlinearity or stray light).¹ To improve prediction accuracy, especially when transferring models between instruments, detecting and correcting these nonlinearities is essential.¹

Q: What are some specific nonlinear methods currently used in spectroscopic calibration?

A: There are several advanced mathematical frameworks employed to address these challenges. We highlight some of the most common ones below:

1. Polynomial Regression: A simple extension for mild nonlinearities, though it can overfit high-dimensional spectra.¹
2. Kernel Partial Least Squares (K-PLS): Maps data into a high-dimensional feature space to capture complex nonlinearities without explicit computation.¹
3. Gaussian Process Regression (GPR): A Bayesian approach that provides uncertainty estimates but is computationally intensive for large data sets.¹
4. Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs): Highly flexible models suitable for massive datasets like hyperspectral imaging, though they often require significantly large data sets and lack inherent interpretability.¹

Q: What is "Data Fusion," and how does it enhance chemical analysis?

A: Data fusion integrates information from different modalities, such as vibrational (infrared [IR], Raman) and atomic (inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectroscopy [ICP-OES], X-ray) spectroscopies, to provide a more comprehensive sample analysis than any single technique could.² For example, in pharmaceuticals, vibrational methods can quantify excipients while atomic methods track elemental impurities.² Fusion strategies include early fusion (stacking raw data), intermediate fusion (using shared latent spaces), and late fusion (combining decisions from separate models).²

Q: As models become more complex, how can researchers trust their "black box" predictions?

A: The "black box" nature of advanced machine learning (ML) is a significant hurdle, particularly in regulatory or clinical environments.³ Explainable AI (XAI) techniques are being developed to overcome this obstacle. Tools like SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations), LIME, and saliency maps help identify which specific wavelengths or spectral regions are driving a prediction.³ This allows researchers to verify that model decisions are based on chemically meaningful features rather than noise or artifacts.³

Q: What are the primary remaining challenges in these computational workflows?

A: Currently, AI is a hot topic in spectroscopic analysis. As a result, some of the primary remaining challenges in computational workflows revolve around integrating AI with spectroscopy. For example, spectroscopic data contains thousands of highly correlated wavelengths, making it difficult to attribute predictions to specific chemical signals.³ Another challenge is that there is still a trade-off between accuracy and transparency. Highly accurate deep learning models are often the most opaque, while interpretable linear models may underfit complex data.³ And finally, there are challenges associated with data alignment and scaling. In data fusion, different modalities often have varying resolutions and dynamic ranges, requiring complex interpolation and normalization.²

Q: What does the future of spectroscopic computation look like?

A: Currently, spectroscopic computation is shifting toward hybrid physical–statistical models that combine radiative transfer theory with machine learning (ML) to ensure both accuracy and interpretability.^1,2 Ultimately, the goal is to create predictive digital twins, where measurements across different domains are seamlessly integrated for real-time analysis of chemical systems.² Simply stated, this involves combining physics-based models and AI to build build smart, real-time virtual models of chemical systems that help our understanding and predict behavior more accurately for chemical systems.

References

1. Workman, Jr. J. Beyond Linearity: Identifying and Managing Nonlinear Effects in Spectroscopic Data. Spectroscopy. Available at: https://www.spectroscopyonline.com/view/beyond-linearity-identifying-and-managing-nonlinear-effects-in-spectroscopic-data (accessed 2026-02-11).
2. Workman, Jr., J. Data Fusion in Action: Integrating Different Vibrational and Atomic Spectroscopy Data. Spectroscopy. Available at: https://www.spectroscopyonline.com/view/data-fusion-in-action-integrating-different-vibrational-and-atomic-spectroscopy-data (accessed 2026-02-11).
3. Workman, Jr., J. Demystifying the Black Box: Making Machine Learning Models Explainable in Spectroscopy. Spectroscopy. Available at: https://www.spectroscopyonline.com/view/demystifying-the-black-box-making-machine-learning-models-explainable-in-spectroscopy (accessed 2026-02-11).