Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Deep-Learning Investigation of Vibrational Raman Spectra for Plant-Stress Analysis

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A variational autoencoder fed only with the first derivative of raw Raman spectra can detect and quantify plant stress across species and stressors without baseline correction, normalization, or pre-chosen peaks.

desk verdict A plausible VAE-on-derivative pipeline for plant stress Raman spectra, but the 'quantitative' peak areas are total variation of the derivative, not Raman peak areas, and the test set never appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15772 v1 pith:Q5OQLFJZ submitted 2025-07-21 cs.LG cs.AIq-bio.BM

Anoop C. Patil , Benny Jian Rong Sng , Yu-Wei Chang , Joana B. Pereira , Chua Nam-Hai , Rajani Sarojam , Gajendra Pratap Singh , In-Cheol Jang
show 1 more author
Giovanni Volpe
This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIq-bio.BM
keywords Ramanspectroscopyvariationalautoencoderplantstressdetectionunsupervisedspectralanalysisfluorescencebackgroundsuppressiondeeplearningprecisionagriculturezero-crossingpeak
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a variational autoencoder fed only with the first derivative of raw Raman spectra can detect and quantify plant stress without any of the manual preprocessing that normally precedes Raman analysis: no fluorescence-background removal, no reference-intensity normalization, and no advance choice of which peaks matter. The claim matters because those manual steps vary from analyst to analyst, bias each experiment toward already known biomarkers, and force a separate pipeline for every stress, so an automated alternative would make plant health monitoring more reproducible and easier to deploy in the field. The authors apply the workflow, called DIVA, to Arabidopsis, Choy Sum, and Kai Lan plants under light stress, shade avoidance (including the photoreceptor mutants phyA-211 and phyB-9BC), high temperature, bacterial infection, and bacterial elicitors, and report that its latent-space clusters separate stress conditions and that its reconstructed spectra recover the expected stress markers of carotenoids, cellulose/lignin/proteins, and pectin, along with species-specific response trajectories. If the central claim is right, Raman-based stress detection in plants no longer requires a human expert to clean the spectra before a model can interpret them.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two objects working together. The first is the first-derivative transformation $D(\tilde{\nu}) = dI(\tilde{\nu})/d\tilde{\nu}$ of the raw Raman intensity, whose stated job is to suppress the slowly varying fluorescence background relative to the sharper Raman peaks so that baseline fitting, smoothing, and normalization can be skipped. The second is a variational autoencoder with a 64-neuron hidden layer and a 4-neuron latent layer, trained with an ELBO loss that combines mean-absolute-error reconstruction with KL divergence, producing a continuous and complete latent space in which spectra cluster by stress condition. The link between the two is the decoding step: the median of each cluster is decoded into a characteristic derivative spectrum, and a zero-crossing analysis of that reconstruction—specifically the crossings where the derivative changes from positive to negative—fixes the peak positions, while the area under the graph between neighboring crossings quantifies the biomolecular content at each wavenumber.

What would settle it

Simulate or collect Raman spectra with known peaks embedded in a steep, structured fluorescence background, such as an exponential or sharply sloped baseline, run them through the DIVA workflow, and check whether the detected peak positions and relative areas match the known inputs; spurious zero-crossing peaks, shifted positions, or noise-dominated reconstructions would show the derivative step does not always replace manual background removal. A complementary check is to compare DIVA's zero-crossing peak areas with those from a careful gold-standard baseline correction on the same plant data and look for systematic disagreement in conditions with high fluorescence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the paper's own terms, is that native Raman spectra—fluorescence background included—can be analyzed end-to-end without manual preprocessing. The workflow first replaces each raw spectrum $I(\tilde{\nu})$ with its first derivative $D(\tilde{\nu}) = dI(\tilde{\nu})/d\tilde{\nu}$, on the argument that the slowly varying fluorescence background has a smaller derivative than the sharp Raman peaks, so baseline correction and normalization become unnecessary. The derivative spectra are then fed to a variational autoencoder whose two-dimensional latent space clusters spectra by plant condition, and the decoder reconstructs the characteristic derivative spectrum of each cluster from its median point. Raman peaks are located as the positive-to-negative zero-crossings of that reconstructed derivative, and the area under the graph at each peak provides a quantitative readout of the associated biomolecule without any prior hypothesis about which wavenumbers should respond. Across light, shade, heat, bacterial-infection, and elicitor experiments in three species and two Arabidopsis mutants, this unsupervised pipeline reports condition-specific latent-space separations and recovers the same core set of stress markers—carotenoids near 1521, 1151, and 1180 cm$^{-1}$; cellulose/lignin/protein near 1318 cm$^{-1}$; pectin near 742 cm$^{-1}$—while also flagging treatment-specific peaks such as 1001 versus 1178 cm$^{-1}$ in buffer- versus pathogen-infiltrated leaves and 843 cm$^{-1}$ under elf18 elicitation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the first derivative of the raw Raman spectrum suppresses the slowly varying fluorescence background strongly enough that baseline correction and normalization can be dropped, and the paper does not test this on spectra with steep or strongly structured fluorescence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Plant stress detection no longer requires manual fluorescence-background removal, normalization, or pre-selected peak lists, so results do not depend on the analyst's choices.
  • One unsupervised pipeline spans abiotic and biotic stressors and multiple species and genotypes, replacing bespoke stress-by-stress workflows.
  • Molecular stress responses become visible before symptoms appear, as in the bacterial-infection study where latent separation and marker changes were detected at 24 hours with no visible signs of disease.
  • Latent-space trajectories expose species- and genotype-specific strategies: under heat, Arabidopsis declines, Choy Sum stabilizes after an early adjustment, and Kai Lan accumulates changes stepwise, while the phyB-9BC mutant clusters near its constitutively shade-avoiding phenotype across light conditions.
  • Peaks are found systematically from zero-crossings and quantified by area under the graph, so the same raw spectra yield the same analysis without investigator judgment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The derivative-plus-autoencoder trick may transfer to other spectroscopies with slowly varying backgrounds, such as near-infrared or fluorescence emission spectroscopy, where baseline removal is also a bottleneck; the paper develops it only for Raman.
  • Each case study trains its own model, so a single jointly trained DIVA that separates stress type, intensity, and time into distinct latent axes remains untested; if it worked, the latent space could become a general plant-health coordinate system rather than a per-experiment clustering.
  • The area-under-graph values are ranked rather than statistically tested; permuting or bootstrapping the per-group peak areas would turn 'significant peaks' into a formal significance claim, which the current workflow does not provide.
  • If latent-space geometry reflects physiology as faithfully as the phyB-9BC results suggest, DIVA could be used to phenotype unknown mutants by locating their spectra relative to known genotypes and predicting their stress trajectories before any phenotype measurement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces DIVA, a variational-autoencoder-based workflow for analyzing raw Raman spectra of plant tissue without manual baseline correction or a priori peak selection. The method computes the first derivative of the raw spectrum, trains a VAE to embed the derivative spectra in a two-dimensional latent space, reconstructs characteristic derivative spectra from cluster medians, and identifies 'significant' peaks via positive-to-negative zero crossings of the reconstructed derivative. The area A(ṽ) around each zero crossing is claimed to provide a quantitative measure of biomolecular concentration. The authors apply DIVA to light stress, shade avoidance, high-temperature stress, and bacterial infection in Arabidopsis, Choy Sum, and Kai Lan, and report consistent sets of peaks assigned to carotenoids, cellulose/lignin/protein, and pectin.

Significance. If the central claims were fully supported, this would be a useful contribution: an unsupervised, interpretable pipeline that removes the need for manual baseline correction and peak selection in Raman-based plant phenotyping, with demonstrations across multiple species and stressors. The workflow is simple and the latent-space visualizations are intuitive. However, the paper's headline claim of unbiased quantitative analysis is not yet supported: the area metric is not a calibrated concentration measure, the main results are reported only on the training set, and no statistical uncertainty or significance testing is provided. The authors also credit the ability to identify biologically meaningful peaks, but the validation relies on a reference with overlapping authorship. With additional analysis (test-set evaluation, recalibration or redefinition of the area metric, error bars and significance tests, and independent validation), the method could become a valuable tool.

major comments (5)
  1. [Results: 'DIVA to analyze Raman spectra'; Methods: 'Significant Peaks Detection Methodology'] The quantity A(ṽ) described in the Results as 'the area under the curve' and as providing 'a quantitative measure of the concentrations of the biomolecules' is defined in Methods as the sum of the absolute signal values of the derivative D(ṽ) between adjacent zero crossings. This is the total variation of the reconstructed spectrum over the peak region (approximately twice the peak height for a symmetric peak), not the integrated area under the Raman band, which is the quantity proportional to concentration. The manuscript provides no calibration curve, no comparison with conventional baseline-corrected peak areas, and no error bars on A(ṽ). As written, the quantitative-concentration claim is unsupported. Please recompute peak areas from the de-transformed spectra or explicitly reframe A(ṽ) as a peak-height proxy and revise the text and abstract accordingly.
  2. [Methods: 'Training set sizes and Model execution times'] The manuscript states that 'results presented in the main figures are based on these training sets' and that the remaining 10% was 'held out for testing and validation,' yet no test-set results are shown anywhere. For a VAE, training-set embeddings can reflect reconstruction of the training data rather than generalizable clustering; without projecting the held-out spectra into the trained latent space and showing that the cluster medians and identified peaks are stable, the generalizability and 'unbiased' claims are not established. Please include test-set latent projections, cluster assignments, and reconstructed spectra for at least the main case studies.
  3. [Figs. 2–5 and Extended Data Fig. 1] All values of A(ṽ) are presented as point estimates without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Because multiple leaves, locations, and replicate spectra were acquired per condition, the authors should report the distribution of A(ṽ) (or the corrected area metric) across biological replicates and test whether differences between conditions are statistically significant. The fixed choice of the 'five most significant peaks' is an arbitrary cutoff and should be replaced by a statistical threshold or justified explicitly.
  4. [Results: 'Decoding light stress responses…'; reference [15]] The biological validation of the identified peaks relies on reference [15], which shares authors with the present study and which reports the same Raman peak assignments (carotenoids at 1150–1521 cm⁻¹, cellulose/lignin/protein at ~1318 cm⁻¹, pectin at ~743 cm⁻¹). Because the same peak set is 'discovered' in every stress condition and is then validated against a non-independent reference, the claim that DIVA identifies previously unknown or unbiased markers is not supportable. Please provide independent validation, such as comparison with a conventional baseline-corrected analysis or published peak assignments from a different group, and state how many of the top-five peaks differ from the reference set.
  5. [Data preprocessing; Results: first-derivative fluorescence suppression] The abstract and introduction claim that DIVA processes 'native Raman spectra—including fluorescence backgrounds—without manual preprocessing.' In practice, the pipeline includes normalization ('The spectra were normalized by reducing the original Raman intensities'), cosmic-ray removal, and spectral trimming, so the claim should be qualified. More substantively, the core assumption that the first derivative suppresses the fluorescence background 'without requiring ad hoc background fitting procedures' is not tested on spectra with strong or steeply varying fluorescence; if the fluorescence gradient is large relative to the Raman peaks, the derivative input will be dominated by the background. Please include a quantitative characterization of the fluorescence background in the datasets or a simulated stress test with varying fluorescence slopes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Methods: 'Variational Autoencoder for Unsupervised Clustering'] The description 'Leaky ReLU activation layer with an alpha value of 1' corresponds to the identity function, not a leaky nonlinearity; please clarify whether the decoder actually uses a nonlinear activation.
  2. [Methods: 'Variational Autoencoder for Unsupervised Clustering'] The encoder and decoder descriptions do not specify the latent dimension explicitly; the captions refer to a 'two-dimensional latent space,' but the layer with 4 neurons preceding the sampling layer suggests a latent dimension of 2. Please state the latent dimension explicitly.
  3. [Supplementary figures] The supplementary figures refer to 'detransforming the derivative D(ṽ) spectra'; please explain the integration procedure and the constant of integration used to recover I(ṽ).
  4. [General] The paper does not include a data or code availability statement; given the emphasis on reproducibility and unbiased analysis, please provide access to the processed spectra and the implementation.
  5. [Discussion] Several biological interpretations (e.g., the 'oscillating immune behavior' in Extended Data Fig. 1) are speculative; consider phrasing these as hypotheses rather than conclusions.
  6. [References] Reference [28] is a preprint; if a peer-reviewed version exists, please cite it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The detection/clustering pipeline is self-contained, but the quantitative concentration claim reduces by construction: A(v~) is defined as a sum of absolute derivative values and then asserted to represent biomolecular concentration.

  1. self definitional [Methods, 'Significant Peaks Detection Methodology'; Results, 'DIVA to analyze Raman spectra']
    "For each such crossing index, the area was computed as the sum of the absolute signal values between the immediately preceding and succeeding zero-crossing points. ... The resulting area values were stored in an array, representing an estimate of the biomolecular concentration at the site of Raman signal acquisition. ... by calculating the area under the curve, A(ν~), at these peak positions ... we obtain a quantitative measure of the concentrations of the biomolecules at specific wavenumbers."

    The paper's quantitative concentration result is not derived from any independent concentration measurement or calibration. The metric A(ν~) is defined in Methods as the sum of absolute derivative values between zero crossings of D(ν~)=dI/dν~, i.e., the total variation of the derivative over a peak region, and this same array is then declared to 'represent an estimate of the biomolecular concentration.' The Results step then presents A(ν~) as yielding 'a quantitative measure of the concentrations.' Thus the conclusion (concentration) is loaded into the definition of the input statistic; the quantification claim reduces to the definition of A by construction, with no comparison to baseline-corrected peak areas and no error bars or statistical tests.

full rationale

The unsupervised VAE clustering is not circular: the model is trained on first-derivative spectra without labels, and the latent-space organization and reconstructed cluster-median spectra are self-contained data summaries. The first-derivative fluorescence-suppression assumption is a stated modeling assumption, not a circular step. The biological peak assignments to carotenoids, cellulose/lignin/protein, and pectin are taken from prior published Raman band references (refs [5] and [15]); although those references share some authors with the present paper, they are prior experimental studies with their own data, so citing them for band identities is external support rather than a circular argument. The one genuine circular step is the quantitative concentration claim: A(ν~) is defined operationally as a sum of absolute derivative values between zero crossings, and the same Methods text asserts that this array 'represent[s] an estimate of the biomolecular concentration,' while Results later presents A(ν~) as 'a quantitative measure of the concentrations.' No calibration curve, no independent concentration measurement, and no comparison with conventional baseline-corrected Raman peak areas is provided. Therefore the quantification component is self-definitional, even though the detection and clustering components are not. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the central detection pipeline has independent content, but the headline 'quantifying' claim reduces to the definition of the reported quantity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the derivative preprocessing assumption, the use of VAE cluster medians as representative spectra, and the post hoc selection of the top five peaks. The VAE hyperparameters are chosen by hand and no sensitivity analysis is shown. The biological peak assignments are imported from the authors' prior publications. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Latent dimension of VAE = 2 (figures) or 4 (architecture text), ambiguous
    The architecture section states a fully connected layer with 4 neurons feeds the sampling layer, while all figures show a 2D latent space. The dimension influences clustering and is chosen by hand.
  • Number of significant peaks = 5 per condition
    The method ranks peaks by area under the derivative and reports the top five for each state. This threshold is arbitrary and not statistically derived.
  • VAE training hyperparameters = learning rate 1e-3, batch size 40, 3000 epochs, 64 hidden units
    These are hand-chosen and no sensitivity analysis is provided; results could change with different settings.
  • Peak area boundary handling = discard incomplete peak regions at spectrum edges
    This ad hoc rule affects which peaks can be considered significant, especially near 600 and 1750 cm^-1.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The derivative of a slowly varying fluorescence background is negligible compared to the derivative of Raman peaks, so no baseline correction is needed.
    Stated in Results, second paragraph of 'DIVA to analyze Raman spectra'. This is load-bearing because the whole pipeline skips baseline removal.
  • standard math Positive-to-negative zero crossings of the first derivative correspond to Raman peak positions.
    Standard calculus result, used in Methods 'Significant Peaks Detection Methodology'.
  • ad hoc to paper The median of each VAE cluster in latent space reconstructs the average characteristic spectrum of that condition.
    Used throughout to generate the 'decoded characteristic Raman spectra derivative'. The paper does not justify why the median point is representative or how clusters are assigned to conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper The top five peaks by area under the derivative curve are biologically significant.
    No statistical test; significance is defined by rank, chosen post hoc.
  • domain assumption Raman peak assignments to biomolecules (carotenoids, cellulose, etc.) from reference [15] are correct.
    The biological interpretation relies on these assignments, which are from the authors' own prior work.
  • domain assumption The VAE's latent space is continuous and complete, allowing meaningful interpolation and reconstruction.
    Invoked in Results (third paragraph) but not verified; standard VAE properties are assumed to hold for this small dataset.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep-Learning Investigation of Vibrational Raman Spectra for Plant-Stress Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5OQLFJZ

@misc{pith2026250715772,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep-Learning Investigation of Vibrational Raman Spectra for Plant-Stress Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q5OQLFJZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15772}
}
read the original abstract

Detecting stress in plants is crucial for both open-farm and controlled-environment agriculture. Biomolecules within plants serve as key stress indicators, offering vital markers for continuous health monitoring and early disease detection. Raman spectroscopy provides a powerful, non-invasive means to quantify these biomolecules through their molecular vibrational signatures. However, traditional Raman analysis relies on customized data-processing workflows that require fluorescence background removal and prior identification of Raman peaks of interest-introducing potential biases and inconsistencies. Here, we introduce DIVA (Deep-learning-based Investigation of Vibrational Raman spectra for plant-stress Analysis), a fully automated workflow based on a variational autoencoder. Unlike conventional approaches, DIVA processes native Raman spectra-including fluorescence backgrounds-without manual preprocessing, identifying and quantifying significant spectral features in an unbiased manner. We applied DIVA to detect a range of plant stresses, including abiotic (shading, high light intensity, high temperature) and biotic stressors (bacterial infections). By integrating deep learning with vibrational spectroscopy, DIVA paves the way for AI-driven plant health assessment, fostering more resilient and sustainable agricultural practices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15772 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Deep learning-based Investigation of Vibrational Raman spectra for plant-stress [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Decoding stress responses due to pathogenic bacterial infection in Choy Sum plants. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    J., Seo, J

    Chung, P . J., Seo, J. S., Ram, R. J., Sarojam, R. & Chua, N.-H. Rapid detection and quan- tification of plant innate immunity response using Raman spectroscopy. Frontiers in Plant Science 12, 746586 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Lew, T. T. S. et al. Species-independent analytical tools for next-generation agriculture. Nature Plants 6, 1408–1417 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Coatsworth, P ., Gonzalez-Macia, L., Collins, A. S. P ., Bozkurt, T. & G ¨uder, F. Continuous monitoring of chemical signals in plants under stress. Nature Reviews Chemistry 7, 7–25 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Sanchez, L., Ermolenkov, A., Biswas, S., Septiningsih, E. M. & Kurouski, D. Raman spec- troscopy enables non-invasive and confirmatory diagnostics of salinity stresses, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium deficiencies in rice. Frontiers in Plant Science 11, 573321 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Li, Z. et al. Non-invasive plant disease diagnostics enabled by smartphone-based fingerprint- ing of leaf volatiles. Nature Plants 5, 856–866 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    Sng, B. J. R. et al. Rapid metabolite response in leaf blade and petiole as a marker for shade avoidance syndrome. Plant Methods 16, 1–17 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Payne, W. Z. & Kurouski, D. Raman-based diagnostics of biotic and abiotic stresses in plants. a review. Frontiers in Plant Science 11, 616672 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    M., Shulaev, V ., Blumwald, E

    Suzuki, N., Rivero, R. M., Shulaev, V ., Blumwald, E. & Mittler, R. Abiotic and biotic stress combinations. New Phytologist 203, 32–43 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Ang, M. C.-Y . et al. Decoding early stress signaling waves in living plants using nanosensor multiplexing. Nature Communications 15, 2943 (2024)

    2024

  2. [9]

    Lowry, G. V . et al. Towards realizing nano-enabled precision delivery in plants. Nature Nanotechnology 1–15 (2024)

    2024

  3. [10]

    G., Kaiser, E., V erbiest, G

    Steeneken, P . G., Kaiser, E., V erbiest, G. J. & ten V eldhuis, M.-C. Sensors in agriculture: towards an Internet of Plants. Nature Reviews Methods Primers 3, 60 (2023). 36

    2023

  4. [11]

    Son, W. K. et al. In vivo surface-enhanced Raman scattering nanosensor for the real-time monitoring of multiple stress signalling molecules in plants. Nature Nanotechnology 18, 205–216 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    Lew, T. T. S. et al. Real-time detection of wound-induced H2O2 signalling waves in plants with optical nanosensors. Nature Plants 6, 404–415 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    & Kurouski, D

    Farber, C., Mahnke, M., Sanchez, L. & Kurouski, D. Advanced spectroscopic techniques for plant disease diagnostics. A review. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 118, 43–49 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    Butler, H. J. et al. Using Raman spectroscopy to characterize biological materials. Nature Protocols 11, 664–687 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    & Rehman, I

    Movasaghi, Z., Rehman, S. & Rehman, I. U. Raman spectroscopy of biological tissues. Applied Spectroscopy Reviews 42, 493–541 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    Weng, S. et al. Advanced application of Raman spectroscopy and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy in plant disease diagnostics: a review. Journal of Agricultural and F ood Chem- istry 69, 2950–2964 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Gupta, S. et al. Portable Raman leaf-clip sensor for rapid detection of plant stress. Scientific Reports 10, 20206 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Qi, Y . et al. Recent progresses in machine learning assisted Raman spectroscopy. Advanced Optical Materials 11, 2203104 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Fang, S. et al. Recent progress and applications of Raman spectrum denoising algorithms in chemical and biological analyses: A review. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 117578 (2024). 37

    2024

  13. [21]

    & Stoddart, P

    Cadusch, P ., Hlaing, M., Wade, S., McArthur, S. & Stoddart, P . Improved methods for fluorescence background subtraction from Raman spectra. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy 44, 1587–1595 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Georgiev, D. et al. RamanSPy: An open-source Python package for integrative Raman spec- troscopy data analysis. Analytical Chemistry 96, 8492–8500 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Zhao, J., Lui, H., McLean, D. I. & Zeng, H. Automated autofluorescence background sub- traction algorithm for biomedical Raman spectroscopy. Applied Spectroscopy 61, 1225–1232 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    K., Segtnan, V

    Afseth, N. K., Segtnan, V . H. & Wold, J. P . Raman spectra of biological samples: A study of preprocessing methods. Applied Spectroscopy 60, 1358–1367 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    & Bocklitz, T

    Ryabchykov, O., Guo, S. & Bocklitz, T. Analyzing Raman spectroscopic data. Physical Sciences Reviews 4, 20170043 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    & Havaux, M

    Shumbe, L., Bott, R. & Havaux, M. Dihydroactinidiolide, a high light-induced β-carotene derivative that can regulate gene expression and photoacclimation in Arabidopsis. Molecular Plant 7, 1248–1251 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Mart ´ınez-Garc´ıa, J. F. et al. The shade avoidance syndrome in Arabidopsis: the antagonistic role of phytochrome A and B differentiates vegetation proximity and canopy shade. PLOS One 9, e109275 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Chang, Y .-W. et al. BRAPH 2: a flexible, open-source, reproducible, community-oriented, easy-to-use framework for network analyses in neurosciences. bioRxiv (2025). URL https: //www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2025/05/22/2025.04.11.648455

    2025

  21. [29]

    Mijalkov, M. et al. BRAPH: A graph theory software for the analysis of brain connectivity. PloS One 12, e0178798 (2017). 38

    2017

  22. [30]

    P ., Welling, M

    Kingma, D. P ., Welling, M. et al. An introduction to variational autoencoders. F oundations and Trends® in Machine Learning 12, 307–392 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Tutorial on variational autoencoders

    Doersch, C. Tutorial on variational autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05908 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Light Stress Study

    V olpe, G. et al. Deep Learning Crash Course , chap. 4, 169–210 (No Starch Press, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA, 2025). 39 Acknowledgments The study was supported by (i) Disruptive & Sustainable Technologies for Agricul- tural Precision (DiSTAP), Singapore-MIT Alliance for Rese...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.