`prospectr`

package`prospectr`

is becoming more and more used in spectroscopic applications, which
is evidenced by the number of scientific publications citing the package. This
package is very useful for singal processing and chemometrics in general as it
provides various utilities for pre–processing and sample selection of spectral
data. While similar functions are available in other packages, like `signal`

, the functions in this
package works indifferently for `data.frame`

, `matrix`

and `vector`

inputs.
Besides, several functions are optimized for speed and use C++ code through the `Rcpp`

and `RcppArmadillo`

packages.

Several spectroscopic techniques such as Near-Infrared (NIR) spectroscopy are
high–troughput, non–destructive and cheap sensing methods that has a range of
applications in agricultural, medical, food and environmental science. A number
of `R`

packages of interest for the spectroscopist is already available for
processing and analysis of spectroscopic data.

Since the publication of the special special Volume in Spectroscopy and Chemometrics in R (Mullen and Stokkum 2007) many spectroscopy-related packages have been released. Most of these packages can be found at the following CRAN task views:

In addition, Bryan Hanson provides a list of Free Open Source Software (FOSS) dedictaed to Spectroscopic applications in general (see https://bryanhanson.github.io/FOSS4Spectroscopy/).

`prospectr`

is becoming more and more used in spectroscopic applications, which
is evidenced by the number of scientific publications citing the package.
This package is very useful for singal processing and chemometrics in general as
provides various utilities for pre–processing and sample selection
of spectral data. Please use the following citation. Simply type and you will
get the info you need:

```
##
## To cite package 'prospectr' in publications use:
##
## Antoine Stevens and Leornardo Ramirez-Lopez (2020). An introduction
## to the prospectr package. R package Vignette R package version 0.2.1.
##
## A BibTeX entry for LaTeX users is
##
## @Manual{,
## title = {An introduction to the prospectr package},
## author = {Antoine Stevens and Leornardo Ramirez-Lopez},
## publication = {R package Vignette},
## year = {2020},
## note = {R package version 0.2.1},
## }
```

The aim of spectral pre-treatment is to improve signal quality before modeling as well as remove physical information from the spectra. Applying a pre-treatment can increase the repeatability/reproducibility of the method, model robustness and accuracy, although there are no guarantees this will actually work. The pre-processing functions that are currently available in the package are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. List of pre-processing functions

Function Name | Description |
---|---|

`movav` |
simple moving (or running) average filter |

`savitzkyGolay` |
Savitzky–Golay smoothing and derivative |

`gapDer` |
gap–segment derivative |

`continuumRemoval` |
computes continuum–removed values |

`detrend` |
detrend normalization |

`standardNormalVariate` |
Standard Normal Variate (SNV) transformation |

`msc` |
Multiplicative Scatter Correction |

`binning` |
average a signal in column bins |

`resample` |
resample a signal to new band positions |

`resample2` |
resample a signal using new FWHM values |

`blockScale` |
block scaling |

`blockNorm` |
sum of squares block weighting |

We show below how they can be used, using the Near-Infrared (NIR) dataset (NIRsoil) included in the package (Fernandez-Pierna and Dardenne 2008). Observations should be arranged row-wise.

```
library(prospectr)
data(NIRsoil)
# NIRsoil is a data.frame with 825 obs and 5 variables: Nt (Total Nitrogen), Ciso
# (Carbon), CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity), train (vector of 0,1 indicating
# training (1) and validation (0) samples), spc (spectral matrix)
str(NIRsoil)
```

```
## 'data.frame': 825 obs. of 5 variables:
## $ Nt : num 0.3 0.69 0.71 0.85 NA ...
## $ Ciso : num 0.22 NA NA NA 0.9 NA NA 0.6 NA 1.28 ...
## $ CEC : num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ...
## $ train: num 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ...
## $ spc : num [1:825, 1:700] 0.339 0.308 0.328 0.364 0.237 ...
## ..- attr(*, "dimnames")=List of 2
## .. ..$ : chr [1:825] "1" "2" "3" "4" ...
## .. ..$ : chr [1:700] "1100" "1102" "1104" "1106" ...
```

Noise represents random fluctuations around the signal that can originate from the instrument or environmental laboratory conditions. The simplest solution to remove noise is to perform \(n\) repetition of the measurements, and the average individual spectra. The noise will decrease with a factor \(\sqrt{n}\). When this is not possible, or if residual noise is still present in the data, the noise can be removed mathematically.

A moving average filter is a column-wise operation which average contiguous wavelengths within a given window size.

```
# add some noise
noisy <- NIRsoil$spc + rnorm(length(NIRsoil$spc), 0, 0.001)
# Plot the first spectrum
plot(x = as.numeric(colnames(NIRsoil$spc)),
y = noisy[1, ],
type = "l",
lwd = 1.5,
xlab = "Wavelength",
ylab = "Absorbance")
X <- movav(X = noisy, w = 11) # window size of 11 bands
# Note that the 5 first and last bands are lost in the process
lines(x = as.numeric(colnames(X)), y = X[1,], lwd = 1.5, col = "red")
grid()
legend("topleft",
legend = c("raw", "moving average"),
lty = c(1, 1), col = c("black", "red"))
```

Savitzky-Golay filtering (Savitzky and Golay 1964) is a very common preprocessing
technique. It fits a local polynomial regression on the signal and requires
**equidistant** bandwidth. Mathematically, it operates simply as a weighted sum
of neighbouring values:

\[ x_j\ast = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{h=-k}^{k}{c_hx_{j+h}}\]

where \(x_j\ast\) is the new value, \(N\) is a normalizing coefficient, \(k\) is the number of neighbour values at each side of \(j\) and \(c_h\) are pre-computed coefficients, that depends on the chosen polynomial order and degree (smoothing, first and second derivative).

```
# p = polynomial order w = window size (must be odd) m = m-th derivative (0 =
# smoothing) The function accepts vectors, data.frames or matrices. For a matrix
# input, observations should be arranged row-wise
sgvec <- savitzkyGolay(X = NIRsoil$spc[1, ], p = 3, w = 11, m = 0)
sg <- savitzkyGolay(X = NIRsoil$spc, p = 3, w = 11, m = 0)
# note that bands at the edges of the spectral matrix are lost !
dim(NIRsoil$spc)
```

`## [1] 825 700`

`## [1] 825 690`

Taking (numerical) derivatives of the spectra can remove both additive and multiplicative effects in the spectra and have other consequences as well (Table 2).

Table 2. Pro’s and con’s of using derivative spectra.

Advantage | Drawback |
---|---|

Reduce of baseline offset | Risk of overfitting the calibration model |

Can resolve absorption overlapping | Increase noise, smoothing required |

Compensates for instrumental drift | Increase uncertainty in model coefficients |

Enhances small spectral absorptions | Complicate spectral interpretation |

Often increase predictive accuracy | Remove the baseline ! |

for complex datasets |

First and second derivatives of a spectrum can be computed with the finite difference method (difference between to subsequent data points), provided that the band width is constant:

\[ x_i' = x_i - x_{i-1}\]

\[ x_i'' = x_{i-1} - 2 \cdot x_i + x_{i+1}\]

In R, this can be simply achieved with the `diff`

function in `base`

:

```
# X = wavelength
# Y = spectral matrix
# n = order
d1 <- t(diff(t(NIRsoil$spc), differences = 1)) # first derivative
d2 <- t(diff(t(NIRsoil$spc), differences = 2)) # second derivative
plot(as.numeric(colnames(d1)),
d1[1,],
type = "l",
lwd = 1.5,
xlab = "Wavelength",
ylab = "")
lines(as.numeric(colnames(d2)), d2[1,], lwd = 1.5, col = "red")
grid()
legend("topleft",
legend = c("1st der", "2nd der"),
lty = c(1, 1),
col = c("black", "red"))
```

One can see that derivatives tend to increase noise. One can use gap derivatives or the Savitzky-Golay algorithm to solve this. The gap derivative is computed simply as:

\[ x_i' = x_{i+k} - x_{i-k}\]

\[ x_i'' = x_{i-k} - 2 \cdot x_i + x_{i+k}\]

where \(k\) is the gap size. Again, this can be easily achieved in R using the
`lag`

argument of the `diff`

function

For more flexibility and control over the degree of smoothing, one could however
use the Savitzky-Golay (`savitzkyGolay`

) and Gap-segment derivative (`gapDer`

)
algorithms. The Gap-segment algorithms performs first a smoothing under a given
segment size, followed by a derivative of a given order under a given gap size.
Here is an exemple of the use of the `gapDer`

function.

```
# m = order of the derivative
# w = window size ( = {2 * gap size} + 1)
# s = segment size
# first derivative with a gap of 10 bands
gsd1 <- gapDer(X = NIRsoil$spc, m = 1, w = 11, s = 10)
plot(as.numeric(colnames(d1)),
d1[1,],
type = "l",
lwd = 1.5,
xlab = "Wavelength",
ylab = "")
lines(as.numeric(colnames(gsd1)), gsd1[1,], lwd = 1.5, col = "red")
grid()
legend("topleft",
legend = c("1st der","gap-segment 1st der"),
lty = c(1,1),
col = c("black", "red"))
```

Undesired spectral variations due to light *scatter* effects and variations in
effective *path length* can be removed using scatter corrections.

*Standard Normal Variate* (SNV) is another simple way for normalizing spectra
that intends to correct for light *scatter*. It operates row-wise:

\[ SNV_i = \frac{x_i - \bar{x_i}}{s_i}\]

According to Fearn (2008), it is better to perform SNV transformation after filtering (by e.g. Savitzky-Golay) than the reverse.

Along with SNV, MSC (Geladi, MacDougall, and Martens 1985) this is one of the most widely used pre-processing techniques in NIR spectroscopy (Rinnan, Van Den Berg, and Engelsen 2009). This is a normalization method that attempts to account for additive and multiplicative effects by aligning each spectrum (\(x_i\)) with an ideal reference one (\(x_r\)) as follows: \[x_i = m_i x_r + a_i\] \[MSC(x_i) = \frac{a_i - x_i}{m_i}\] where \(a_i\) and \(m_i\) are the additive and multiplicative terms respectively.

```
# X = input spectral matrix
msc_spc <- msc(X = NIRsoil$spc, reference_spc = colMeans(NIRsoil$spc))
plot(as.numeric(colnames(NIRsoil$spc)),
NIRsoil$spc[1,],
type = "l",
xlab = "Wavelength, nm", ylab = "Absorbance",
lwd = 1.5)
lines(as.numeric(colnames(NIRsoil$spc)),
msc_spc[1,],
lwd = 1.5, col = "red")
axis(4, col = "red")
grid()
legend("topleft",
legend = c("raw", "MSC signal"),
lty = c(1, 1),
col = c("black", "red"))
```

Since the MSC-corrected is based on a reference spectrum, it is necessary to
save this spectrum in order to apply the same type of processing to new spectra
later on. The following code shows how this can be done in `prospectr`

:

```
# a reference set of spectra
Xr <- NIRsoil$spc[NIRsoil$train == 1, ]
# an "unseen" set of spectra
Xu <- NIRsoil$spc[NIRsoil$train == 0, ]
# apply msc to Xr
Xr_msc <- msc(Xr)
# apply the same msc to Xu
attr(Xr_msc,"Reference spectrum") # use this info from the previous object
Xu_msc <- msc(Xu, reference_spc = attr(Xr_msc, "Reference spectrum"))
```

The *SNV-Detrend* (Barnes, Dhanoa, and Lister 1989) further accounts for wavelength-dependent
scattering effects (variation in curvilinearity between the spectra). After a
*SNV* transformation, a 2\(^{nd}\)-order polynomial is fit to the spectrum and
subtracted from it.

```
# X = input spectral matrix
# wav = band centers
dt <- detrend(X = NIRsoil$spc, wav = as.numeric(colnames(NIRsoil$spc)))
plot(as.numeric(colnames(NIRsoil$spc)),
NIRsoil$spc[1,],
type = "l",
xlab = "Wavelength",
ylab = "Absorbance",
lwd = 1.5)
par(new = TRUE)
plot(dt[1,],
xaxt = "n",
yaxt = "n",
xlab = "",
ylab = "",
lwd = 1.5,
col = "red",
type = "l")
axis(4, col = "red")
grid()
legend("topleft",
legend = c("raw", "detrend signal"),
lty = c(1, 1),
col = c("black", "red"))
```

Centering and scaling tranforms a given matrix to a matrix with columns with
zero mean (*centering*), unit variance (*scaling*) or both (*auto-scaling*):

\[ Xc_{ij} = X_{ij} - \bar{X}_{j} \]

\[ Xs_{ij} = \frac{X_{ij} - \bar{X}_{j}}{s_{j}} \]

where \(Xc\) and \(Xs\) are the mean centered and auto-scaled matrices, \(X\) is the input matrix, \(\bar{X}_{j}\) and \(s_{j}\) are the mean and standard deviation of variable \(j\).

In R, these operations are simply obtained with the `scale`

function. Other
types of scaling can be considered. Spectroscopic models can often be improved
by using ancillary data (e.g. temperature, …) (Fearn 2010). Due to the nature
of spectral data (multivariate), other data would have great chance to be
dominated by the spectral matrix and have no chance to contribute significantly
to the model due to purely numerical reasons (Eriksson et al. 2006). One can use
*block scaling* to overcome this limitation. It basically uses different weights
for different block of variables. With *soft block scaling*, each block is
scaled (ie each column divided by a factor) such that the sum of their variance
is equal to the square root of the number of variables in the block. With
*hard block scaling*, each block is scaled such that the sum of their variance
is equal to 1.

```
# X = spectral matrix type = 'soft' or 'hard' The ouptut is a list with the
# scaled matrix (Xscaled) and the divisor (f)
bs <- blockScale(X = NIRsoil$spc, type = "hard")$Xscaled
sum(apply(bs, 2, var)) # this works!
```

`## [1] 1`

he problem with *block scaling* is that it down-scale all the block variables
to the same variance. Since sometimes this is not advised, one can alternatively
use *sum of squares block weighting* . The spectral matrix is multiplied by a
factor to achieve a pre-determined sum of square:

```
# X = spectral matrix targetnorm = desired norm for X
bn <- blockNorm(X = NIRsoil$spc, targetnorm = 1)$Xscaled
sum(bn^2) # this works!
```

`## [1] 1`

To match the response of one instrument with another, a signal can be resampled
to new band positions by simple interpolation (`resample`

) or using full width
half maximum (FWHM) values (`resample2`

).

The continuum removal technique was introduced by Clark and Roush (1984) as an effective method to highlight absorption features of minerals. It can be viewed as an albedo normalization technique. This technique is based on the computation of the continuum (or envelope) of a given spectrum. The continuum-removed spectrum of a given spectrum is computed as follows:

The convex hull points are identified.

Then, these points are connected by linear interpolation to form the continuum.

The continuum-removed spectrum is given by \(\phi_{i} = \frac{x_{i}}{c_{i}}; i=\left \{ 1,..., p\right\}\), where \(x_{i}\) and \(c_{i}\) are the original and the continuum reflectance (or absorbance) values respectively at the \(i\)^th wavelength of a set of \(p\) wavelengths, and \(\phi_{i}\) is the final reflectance (or absorbance) value after continuum removal.

The `continuumRemoval`

function allows to compute the continuum-removed values
of either reflectance or absorbance spectra.

```
# type of data: 'R' for reflectance (default), 'A' for absorbance
cr <- continuumRemoval(X = NIRsoil$spc, type = "A")
# plot of the 10 first abs spectra
matplot(as.numeric(colnames(NIRsoil$spc)),
t(NIRsoil$spc[1:3,]),
type = "l",
lty = 1,
ylim = c(0,.6),
xlab="Wavelength /nm",
ylab="Absorbance")
matlines(as.numeric(colnames(NIRsoil$spc)), lty = 1, t(cr[1:3, ]))
grid()
```

Calibration models are usually developed on a *representative* portion of the
data (training set) and validated on the remaining set of samples
(test/validation set). There are several solutions for selecting samples, e.g.:

- random selection (see e.g.
`sample`

function in`base`

) - stratified random sampling on percentiles of the response \(y\)
- use the spectral data.

For selecting representative samples, the `prospect`

package provides functions
that use the third solution. The following functions are available:

`naes`

: k-means Sampling (Naes et al. 2002)`kenStone`

: Kennard-Stone Sampling*a.k.a.*CADEX Sampling (Kennard and Stone 1969)`duplex`

: Duplex Sampling (Snee 1977)`puchwein`

: Factor Analysis Sampling (Puchwein 1988)`shenkWest`

: SELECT Sampling (Shenk and Westerhaus 1991)`honigs`

: Honigs Sampling (Honigs et al. 1985)

`naes`

)The \(k\)-means sampling simply uses \(k\)-means clustering algorithm. To sample a subset of \(n\) samples \(X_{tr} = \left \{ {x_{tr}}_{j} \right \}_{j=1}^{n}\), from a given set of \(N\) samples \(X = \left \{ x_i \right \}_{i=1}^{N}\) (note that \(N>n\)) the algorithm works as follows:

Perform a \(k\)-means clustering of \(X\) using \(n\) clusters.

Extract the \(n\) centroids (\(c\), or prototypes). This can be also the sample that is the farthest away from the centre of the data, or a random selection. See the

`method`

argument in`naes`

Calculate the distance of each sample to each \(c\).

For each \(c\) allocate in \(X_{tr}\) its closest sample found in \(X\).

```
# X = the input matrix
# k = number of calibration samples to be selected
# pc = if pc is specified, k-mean is performed in the pc space
# (here we will use only the two 1st pcs)
# iter.max = maximum number of iterations allowed for the k-means clustering.
kms <- naes(X = NIRsoil$spc, k = 5, pc = 2, iter.max = 100)
# Plot the pcs scores and clusters
plot(kms$pc, col = rgb(0, 0, 0, 0.3), pch = 19, main = "k-means")
grid()
# Add the selected points
points(kms$pc[kms$model, ], col = "red", pch = 19)
```

`kenStone`

)To sample a subset of \(n\) samples \(X_{tr} = \left \{ {x_{tr}}_{j} \right \}_{j=1}^{n}\), from a given set of \(N\) samples \(X = \left \{ x_i \right \}_{i=1}^{N}\) (note that \(N>n\)) the Kennard-Stone (CADEX) sampling algorithm consists in Kennard and Stone (1969):

Find in \(X\) the samples \({x_{tr}}_1\) and \({x_{tr}}_2\) that are the farthest apart from each other, allocate them in \(X_{tr}\) and remove them from \(X\).

Find in \(X\) the sample \({x_{tr}}_3\) with the maximum dissimilarity to \(X_{tr}\). Allocate \({x_{tr}}_3\) in \(X_{tr}\) and then remove it from \(X\). The dissimilarity between \(X_{tr}\) and each \(x_i\) is given by the minimum distance of any sample allocated in \(X_{tr}\) to each \(x_i\). In other words, the selected sample is one of the nearest neighbours of the points already selected which is characterized by the maximum distance to the other points already selected.

Repeat the step 2 n-3 times in order to select the remaining samples (\({x_{tr}}_4,..., {x_{tr}}_n\)).

The Kennard-Stone algorithm allows to create a calibration set that has a flat distribution over the spectral space. The metric used to compute the distance between points can be either the Euclidean distance or the Mahalanobis distance. One of the drawbacks of this algorithm is that it is prone to outlier selection (Ramirez-Lopez et al. 2014), therefore outlier analysis is recommended before sample selection.

Let’s see some examples…

```
# Create a dataset for illustrating how the calibration sampling
# algorithms work
X <- data.frame(x1 = rnorm(1000), x2 = rnorm(1000))
plot(X, col = rgb(0, 0, 0, 0.3), pch = 19, main = "Kennard-Stone (synthetic)")
grid()
# kenStone produces a list with row index of the points selected for calibration
ken <- kenStone(X, k = 40)
# plot selected points
points(X[ken$model,], col = "red", pch = 19, cex = 1.4)
```

```
# Test with the NIRsoil dataset
# one can also use the mahalanobis distance (metric argument)
# computed in the pc space (pc argument)
ken_mahal <- kenStone(X = NIRsoil$spc, k = 20, metric = "mahal", pc= 2)
# The pc components in the output list stores the pc scores
plot(ken_mahal$pc[,1],
ken_mahal$pc[,2],
col = rgb(0, 0, 0, 0.3),
pch = 19,
xlab = "PC1",
ylab = "PC2",
main = "Kennard-Stone")
grid()
# This is the selected points in the pc space
points(ken_mahal$pc[ken_mahal$model, 1],
ken_mahal$pc[ken_mahal$model,2],
pch = 19, col = "red")
```

`duplex`

)The Kennard-Stone algorithm selects *calibration* samples. Often, we need also
to select a *validation* subset. The DUPLEX algorithm (Snee 1977) is a
modification of the Kennard-Stone which allows to select a *validation* set
that have similar properties to the *calibration* set. DUPLEX, similarly to
Kennard-Stone, begins by selecting pairs of points that are the farthest
apart from each other, and then assigns points alternatively to the
*calibration* and *validation* sets.

```
dup <- duplex(X = X, k = 15) # k is the number of selected samples
plot(X, col = rgb(0, 0, 0, 0.3), pch = 19, main = "DUPLEX")
grid()
# calibration samples
points(X[dup$model, 1], X[dup$model, 2], col = "red", pch = 19)
# validation samples
points(X[dup$test,1], X[dup$test,2], col = "dodgerblue", pch = 19)
legend("topright",
legend = c("calibration", "validation"),
pch = 19,
col = c("red", "dodgerblue"))
```

`shenkWest`

)The SELECT algorithm (Shenk and Westerhaus 1991) is an iterative procedure which selects the
sample having the maximum number of neighbour samples within a given distance
(`d.min`

argument) and remove the neighbour samples of the selected sample
from the list of points. The number of selected samples depends on the chosen
treshold (default = 0.6). The distance metric is the Mahalanobis distance
divided by the number of dimensions (number of pc components) used to compute
the distance. Here is an example of how the `shenkWest`

function might work:

```
shenk <- shenkWest(X = NIRsoil$spc, d.min = 0.6, pc = 2)
plot(shenk$pc, col = rgb(0, 0, 0, 0.3), pch = 19, main = "SELECT")
grid()
points(shenk$pc[shenk$model,], col = "red", pch = 19)
```

`puchwein`

)The Puchwein algorithm is yet another algorithm for calibration sampling (Puchwein 1988) that create a calibration set with a flat distribution. A nice feature of the algorithm is that it allows an objective selection of the number of required calibration samples with the help of plots. First the data is usually reduced through PCA and the most significant PCs are retained. Then the mahalanobis distance (\(H\)) to the center of the matrix is computed and samples are sorted decreasingly. The distances betwwen samples in the PC space are then computed.

Here are the steps followed by the algorithm:

Step 1. Define a limiting distance.

Step 2. Find the sample with` \(\max(H)\).

Step 3. Remove all the samples which are within the limiting distance away from the sample selected in step 2.

Step 4. Go back in step 2 and find the sample with \(\max(H)\) within the remaining samples.

Step 5. When there is no sample anymore, go back to step 1 and increase the limiting distance.

```
pu <- puchwein(X = NIRsoil$spc, k = 0.2, pc =2)
plot(pu$pc, col = rgb(0, 0, 0, 0.3), pch = 19, main = "puchwein")
grid()
points(pu$pc[pu$model,],col = "red", pch = 19) # selected samples
```

```
par(mfrow = c(2, 1))
plot(pu$leverage$removed,pu$leverage$diff,
type = "l",
xlab = "# samples removed",
ylab="Difference between th. and obs sum of leverages")
# This basically shows that the first loop is optimal
plot(pu$leverage$loop,nrow(NIRsoil) - pu$leverage$removed,
xlab = "# loops",
ylab = "# samples kept", type = "l")
par(mfrow = c(1, 1))
```

`honigs`

)The Honigs algorithm selects samples based on the size of their absorption features (Honigs et al. 1985). It can works both on absorbance and continuum-removed spectra. The sample having the highest absorption feature is selected first. Then this absorption is substracted from other spectra and the algorithm iteratively select samples with the highest absorption (in absolute value) until the desired number of samples is reached.

```
# type = "A" is for absorbance data
ho <- honigs(X = NIRsoil$spc, k = 10, type = "A")
# plot calibration spectra
matplot(as.numeric(colnames(NIRsoil$spc)),
t(NIRsoil$spc[ho$model,]),
type = "l",
xlab = "Wavelength", ylab = "Absorbance")
# add bands used during the selection process
abline(v = as.numeric(colnames(NIRsoil$spc))[ho$bands], lty = 2)
```

Barnes, RJ, Mewa Singh Dhanoa, and Susan J Lister. 1989. “Standard Normal Variate Transformation and de-Trending of Near-Infrared Diffuse Reflectance Spectra.” In *Applied Spectroscopy*, 43:772–77. 5. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England.

Clark, Roger N, and Ted L Roush. 1984. “Reflectance Spectroscopy: Quantitative Analysis Techniques for Remote Sensing Applications.” In *Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth*, 89:6329–40. B7. Wiley Online Library.

Eriksson, Lennart, Erik Johansson, N Kettaneh-Wold, Johan Trygg, C Wikström, and Svante Wold. 2006. *Multi-and Megavariate Data Analysis*. Vol. 1. Umetrics Sweden.

Fearn, Tom. 2008. “The Interaction Between Standard Normal Variate and Derivatives.” *NIR News* 19 (7): 16–17.

———. 2010. “Combining Other Predictors with Nir Spectra.” *NIR News* 21 (2): 13–16.

Fernandez-Pierna, Juan Antonio, and Pierre Dardenne. 2008. “Soil Parameter Quantification by Nirs as a Chemometric Challenge at ‘Chimiométrie 2006’.” *Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems* 91 (1): 94–98.

Geladi, P, D MacDougall, and H Martens. 1985. “Linearization and Scatter-Correction for Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectra of Meat.” *Applied Spectroscopy* 39 (3): 491–500.

Honigs, DE, Gary M Hieftje, HL Mark, and TB Hirschfeld. 1985. “Unique-Sample Selection via Near-Infrared Spectral Subtraction.” *Analytical Chemistry* 57 (12): 2299–2303.

Kennard, Ronald W, and Larry A Stone. 1969. “Computer Aided Design of Experiments.” *Technometrics* 11 (1): 137–48.

Mullen, Katharine M, and Ivo HM van Stokkum. 2007. “An Introduction to the’Special Volume Spectroscopy and Chemometrics in R’.” *Journal of Statistical Software* 18 (01).

Naes, T, T Isaksson, T Fearn, and T Davies. 2002. “Outlier Detection. A User-Friendly Guide to Multivariate Calibration and Classification.” NIR Publications, Chichester.

Puchwein, Gerd. 1988. “Selection of Calibration Samples for Near-Infrared Spectrometry by Factor Analysis of Spectra.” *Analytical Chemistry* 60 (6): 569–73.

Ramirez-Lopez, Leonardo, Karsten Schmidt, Thorsten Behrens, Bas Van Wesemael, Jose AM Demattê, and Thomas Scholten. 2014. “Sampling Optimal Calibration Sets in Soil Infrared Spectroscopy.” *Geoderma* 226: 140–50.

Rinnan, Åsmund, Frans Van Den Berg, and Søren Balling Engelsen. 2009. “Review of the Most Common Pre-Processing Techniques for Near-Infrared Spectra.” *TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry* 28 (10): 1201–22.

Savitzky, Abraham, and Marcel JE Golay. 1964. “Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares Procedures.” *Analytical Chemistry* 36 (8): 1627–39.

Shenk, JS, and MO Westerhaus. 1991. “Population Definition, Sample Selection, and Calibration Procedures for Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy.” *Crop Science* 31 (2): 469–74.

Snee, Ronald D. 1977. “Validation of Regression Models: Methods and Examples.” *Technometrics* 19 (4): 415–28.