A unified perspective on wavelength selection for molecular composition inference from diffuse spectroscopy
Extracted source text · arXiv 2606.23223
\documentclass{optica-article}
\journal{opticajournal} % for journals or Optica Open
\articletype{Research Article}
\usepackage{lineno}
%\linenumbers % Turn off line numbering for Optica Open preprint submissions.
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{pifont}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage{makecell}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\begin{document}
\title{A unified perspective on wavelength selection for molecular composition inference from diffuse spectroscopy}
\author{
Kevin Scibilia,\authormark{1}
Marcel Rosier,\authormark{1}
Luca Giannoni,\authormark{5}
%Charly Caredda,\authormark{4}
Pietro Ricci,\authormark{2,3}
Frédéric Lange,\authormark{5}
%Bruno Montcel,\authormark{4}
Francesco S. Pavone,\authormark{2,3,4}
Ilias Tachtsidis,\authormark{5}
Daniel Rueckert,\authormark{1,6}
and Ivan Ezhov\authormark{1}
}
\address{
\authormark{1}Department of Computer Science, Technical University of Munich, Germany\\
\authormark{2}Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Florence, Italy\\
\authormark{3}European Laboratory for Non-Linear Spectroscopy, Italy\\
%\authormark{4}Univ Lyon, INSA-Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, UJM-Saint Etienne, CNRS, Inserm, CREATIS UMR 5220, France\\
\authormark{4}National Institute of Optics, National Research Council, Italy\\
\authormark{5}Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, United Kingdom\\
\authormark{6}Department of Computing, Imperial College London, United Kingdom\\
%$\dagger$Present affiliation: Department of Integrated Mathematical Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center \& Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States of America\\
%\authormark{\dag}The authors contributed equally to this work.\\
%\email{\authormark{*}ivan.ezhov@tum.de} %% email address is required; see note below about the corresponding author designation
}
% use {asbstract*} to suppress the copyright line. Copyright information will be added in production
\begin{abstract*} Optical monitoring of living tissue targeting quantification of molecular composition is an active area of research. In the case of broadband spectroscopy, one can attempt to extract molecular, or more precisely, chromophore concentration from a broad-range spectrum of the reflected light.
%a) how to identify the exact set of chromophores present in the tissue, and b)
However, selecting the shortest wavelength range sufficient for quantitative optical monitoring remains an open problem.
%Wavelength identification have been thoroughly studied previously \cite{Eames2008, Ayala2022, Jain1997, Kaynezhad2019}. It is often done by employing a physical model analytically describing the relation between the molecular concentrations and the intensity of the reflected light \cite{Cheong1990}.
%The selection methods are typically based on the preservation of inferred concentration as a criterion to reduce the set of measured wavelengths.
%However, in most real scenarios, both relevant tissue chromophores and wavelength bands for inference of molecular composition are unknown. This poses the question of whether preserving inferred concentrations without knowing the exact chromophore set is a suitable optimization task.
%Our work's motivation is that currently, there is no automated framework that can infer the wavelength and wavelength set to be used during model-based molecular composition inference.
Various wavelength optimization methods are scattered throughout the literature, however, there is no unified view to date. Our work's motivation is to construct a wavelength selection framework by unifying existing selection approaches and propose a novel projection-based method that allows for the pre-identification of a wavelength range that is adequate for the final selection. The framework specifically focuses on proposing different methods that quantify match or mismatch between the chosen light-matter interaction model, defined by the chosen endmembers (e.g. molecular chromophores), and the measured intensity from the spectroscopic data. To evaluate the framework, we perform a retrospective analysis on a broadband spectroscopy dataset of piglets during an induced hypoxia-ischemia state. Overall, we show that our novel projection-based method can be used for band selection, and that existing approaches can be used in conjunction to select an optimal minimal wavelength set that satisfies biophysical model constraints.
% \LaTeX{} manuscripts submitted to Optica Publishing Group journals may use these instructions and this universal template format. The template simplifies manuscript preparation and eases transfer between journals. \emph{Applied Optics}, JOSA A, JOSA B, \emph{Journal of Optical Communications and Networking}, \emph{Optica Quantum}, and \emph{Photonics Research} authors should use the length-check template if a precise length estimate is needed. \emph{Optics Letters} authors and authors of short \emph{Optica} articles are encouraged to use the length-check template. Authors using this universal template will still need to adhere to article-length restrictions based on the final, published format. Authors may also \href{https://opticaopen.org}{submit articles} prepared using this template to the Optica Publishing Group preprint server, \href{https://preprints.opticaopen.org}{Optica Open}. However, doing so is optional. Please refer to the submission guidelines found there. Note that copyright and licensing information should no longer be added to your Journal or Optica Open manuscript. If needed for page-length information, please allow 1-2 lines at the end of the abstract to account for the appropriate \href{https://opg.optica.org/content/author/portal/item/review-copyright-permissions/#cpyrt-lic-statements}{copyright licensing statement}.
%The abstract should be limited to approximately 100 words. If the work of another author is cited in the abstract, that citation should be written out without a number, (e.g., journal, volume, first page, and year in square brackets [Opt. Express {\bfseries 22}, 1234 (2014)]), and a separate citation should be included in the body of the text. The first reference cited in the main text must be [1]. Do not include numbers, bullets, or lists inside the abstract. Note that no licensing or copyright statement should appear on the manuscript itself. Such information will be added to the Accepted Manuscript, the published version, or the Optica Open preprint as part of production to ensure accuracy and consistency of appearance.
\end{abstract*}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% body %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\section{Introduction}
%We also argue that, as a natural extension of our framework, the proposed projection-based method can help identify the set of chromophores most relevant to the data.
%is able to select wavelengths matching the underlying selected physical model, ignoring bands dominated by phenomena not included in the model (i.e. scattering) and leading to more physiologically reasonable inferred concentrations.
\section{Introduction}
In a spectroscopic application, when light enters biological tissue, the preferred physical viewpoint is within transport theory instead of the Maxwell equations, as biological tissue is non-homogeneous \cite{Cheong1990}. This model assumes that light is transported by individual photons, that are either absorbed or scattered elastically \cite{Wilson1990}. Inclusion of these two effects was empirically determined to be sufficient in clinical practical scenarios \cite{Wilson1990}, instead of using more complex light interaction models.
Absorption can be modeled in a relatively simple manner via the Beer-Lambert Law. The Beer-Lambert Law (BLL) \cite{Oshina2021, Pichette2016, Kohl2000} states that light absorbed
by a substance is directly proportional to the concentration of the substance:
\[
A\left(\lambda\right)=d\sum_{i}\epsilon_{i}(\lambda)\cdot c_{i}
\]
with $A$ the absorbance, $\epsilon_i$ the extinction coefficient of molecule $i$ with
unit $\left[cm^{-1} \cdot M^{-1}\right]$, $c_{i}$ - the molar concentration,
$d$ the thickness of the medium in cm, and $M$ the molar concentration
in Mol.
%This relationship between absorbance and the other variables should be quite intuitive: absorption of light will depend on how strongly this substance absorbs (which must be proportional to its "absorptivity" determined by the extinction coefficient, and its concentration) and how much light has to travel through the substance (which is dependent on the thickness $d$).
Modification of this model \cite{Delpy1988} allows to account for
multiple scattering \cite{Oshina2021,giannoniphd}, which is commonly present
in optical measurements of biological tissue. This yields the Modified BLL (MBLL) as
\[
A(t,\lambda)=\sum_{i} \text{PL}(\lambda) \cdot \epsilon_{i}(\lambda)\cdot c_{i} + G(t,\lambda)
\]
where $G(t,\lambda)$ is a geometrical factor quantifying scattering-related
loss of light intensity. PL$(\lambda)$ is the average
optical pathlength \cite{Pichette2016,Scholkmann2014} travelled by photons in tissue, from source to
detector, defined as
\[
\text{PL}(\lambda)=\text{DPF}(\lambda)\cdot d
\]
where DPF$(\lambda)$ is the differential pathlength factor accounting for wavelength-dependent increments in the distance travelled by photons due to multiple scattering.
We now emphasize a few key assumptions that allow us to simplify the
problem by inferring changes in molecular concentrations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The incident light intensity $I_{0}$ is constant in time \cite{giannoniphd}.
\item Changes over time in scattering properties $G(t,\lambda)$ are negligible
compared to changes in absorption \cite{Oshina2021,Kocsis2006,giannoniphd}.
\item Changes in attenuation are small over time and homogeneous over space
\cite{Oshina2021,Kocsis2006}.
\end{enumerate}
By assuming a scattering loss $G(t,\lambda)$ that is constant in
time (or changes at least being small compared to absorption \cite{Giannoni2018, giannoni2026hyperspectral}),
one can significantly simplify the problem of inferring molecular
concentrations \cite{Kocsis2006}. Selection of a baseline attenuation
$A(t_{0},\lambda)$ at timepoint $t_{0}$ and comparison with the
attenuation at timepoint $t_{i}$ by subtraction yields the so-called
differential MBLL (dMBLL):
\[
\Delta A\left(t_{1},\lambda\right)=A(t_{1},\lambda)-A(t_{0},\lambda)=\log\left(\frac{I_{0}}{I(t_{1},\lambda)}\right)-\log\left(\frac{I_{0}}{I(t_{0},\lambda)}\right)=-\log\left(\frac{I(t_{1},\lambda)}{I(t_{0},\lambda)}\right)
\]
This corresponds to
\[
\Delta A\left(t_{1},\lambda\right)=\left(\sum_{i} \text{PL}(\lambda) \cdot \epsilon_{i}(\lambda) \cdot c_{i}(t_{1})+G(\lambda)\right)-\left(\sum_{i} \text{PL}(\lambda) \cdot \epsilon_{i}(\lambda)\cdot c_{i}(t_{0})+G(\lambda)\right)=
\]
\[
=\sum_{i} \text{PL}(\lambda) \cdot \epsilon_{i}(\lambda)\cdot\Delta c_{i}
\]
Using this formulation, changes in molecular concentrations can be
inferred for some timepoint $t_{j}$, with respect to $t_{0}$. Assume
that we have measured attenuations across $n$ wavelengths, and that
the pathlength $\text{PL}(\lambda)$ and absorption properties $\epsilon_{j}(\lambda)$
of the $m$ relevant chromophores are known for the chosen wavelengths.
A linear system $\Delta A=M\cdot\Delta c$ can be constructed, where
\begin{equation}
%\frac{\Delta A}{\text{PL}(\lambda_{i})}=\frac{-\log\left(\frac{I(t_{j},\lambda_{i})}{I(t_{0},\lambda_{i})}\right)}{\text{PL}(\lambda_{i})}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times1}\label{eq:b}
%
\Delta A ={-\log\left(\frac{I(t_{j},\lambda_{i})}{I(t_{0},\lambda_{i})}\right)}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times1}\label{eq:b}
\end{equation}
such that
\begin{equation}
\Delta A=\begin{bmatrix}\epsilon_{1,1} \cdot \text{PL}(\lambda_1) & \epsilon_{1,2} \cdot \text{PL}(\lambda_1) & \dots & \epsilon_{1,m} \cdot \text{PL}(\lambda_1)\\
\epsilon_{2,1} \cdot \text{PL}(\lambda_2) & \epsilon_{2,2} \cdot \text{PL}(\lambda_2) & \dots & \epsilon_{2,m} \cdot \text{PL}(\lambda_2)\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\epsilon_{n,1} \cdot \text{PL}(\lambda_n) & \epsilon_{n,2} \cdot \text{PL}(\lambda_n) & \dots & \epsilon_{n,m} \cdot \text{PL}(\lambda_n)
\end{bmatrix}\text{\ensuremath{\cdot}}\begin{bmatrix}\Delta c_{1}\\
\Delta c_{2}\\
\vdots\\
\Delta c_{m}
\end{bmatrix}\label{eq:b_eq_M_c}
\end{equation}
with $\epsilon_{i,j}$ the absorption coefficient at wavelength $i$ of
chromophore $j$, and $M\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$$,c\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times1}$.
The changes in concentrations $\Delta c$ can now be estimated by
minimizing the least squares problem $\Vert M \Delta c- \Delta A\Vert_{2}^{2}$.
Usually there are more measured wavelengths $n$ than relevant chromophores
$m$, yielding an overdetermined system. An efficient method in solving
such a least squares problem for overdetermined systems is through
the use of the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse $M^{\dagger}$ that can
be computed through singular value decomposition \cite{Penrose1956,giannoniphd}.
The changes in concentrations can then be found via a matrix-vector
multiplication,
\begin{equation}
\Delta c=M^{\dagger}\Delta A
\label{eq:cPI}
\end{equation}
% \begin{figure}[ht!]
% \centering\includegraphics[width=7cm]{opticafig1}
% \caption{Sample caption (Fig. 2, \cite{Yelin:03}).}
% \end{figure}
\section{Methods}
%To the best of the author's knowledge, there is little to no standardized framework for such applications with which one can reliably find a relevant subset of wavelengths that can "correctly" identify bands for the needed spectroscopic task at hand. The definition of what constitutes a "correct" subset of wavelengths will depend on the chosen task. I
In section \ref{sec:current-methods}, we provide an overview of algorithms that can be used for wavelength selection. Then in section \ref{sec:a-unified-perspective}, we show how given a dataset of acquired spectroscopy measurements (from tissue of unknown composition) and absorption
spectra (of possible tissue chromophores), one can identify a reduced relevant set of wavelengths together with chromophores.
\subsection{Overview of Current Methods}\label{sec:current-methods}
Firstly, the task of selecting wavelengths can be seen as a feature selection problem \cite{Ayala2022, Jain1997}, independent of the down-stream application (e.g. classification or inference of molecular concentrations). The problem is defined as follows: given a set of candidate features $Y$ (in our case, all wavelengths used by a spectroscopy device) with $|Y|=n$, we are interested in finding a subset (of wavelengths) $X \subseteq Y$ of size $d$ (i.e. $|X|=d$) where
\begin{equation}
X = \max_{Z \subseteq Y, |Z| = d} J(Z) \text{ or } X = \min_{Z \subseteq Y, |Z| = d} J(Z)
\end{equation}
The function $J$ is the feature selection criterion to be maximized (or interchangeably minimized), which will depend on the exact spectroscopic task. There are a total of $\binom{n}{d}$ possibilities when searching for a wavelength subset of size $d$. For most applications, a brute-force search will oftentimes be unfeasible. As an example, imagine to measure the wavelength range from 780$nm$-900$nm$ with 1$nm$ spacing, similarly to \cite{Kaynezhad2019}, and that $J(Z)$ of a candidate wavelength combination $Z$ can be evaluated in $0.1ms = 10^{-4} s$. Finding the optimal set of 15 wavelengths would require $\binom{120}{15} \cdot 10^{-4}s \approx 10^{18} \cdot 10^{-4}s \approx 10^6$ years. While one could argue to use parallel computing and a more coarse wavelength candidate spacing to reduce $n$, the range is however oftentimes larger than in the mentioned example, e.g. in hyperspectral imaging ranging from 400nm to 1000nm. To solve this problem more efficiently, there are three different categories of algorithms that can be used \cite{Jain1997}: sequential methods, stochastic approaches, and optimal methods.
Sequential methods are deterministic algorithms that iteratively add or remove a wavelength from a candidate set. They either start with an empty set and add wavelengths (forward methods), or start with a full set and delete wavelengths (backward methods). The method of iteratively adding one wavelength (the most relevant one maximising $J$) is called "Sequential Forward Selection" (SFS), and the method of starting with all wavelengths and iteratively removing one (the least relevant one, i.e. the one reducing $J$ the least) is called "Sequential Backward Selection" (SBS). More complex algorithmic variants exist \cite{Jain1997}, such as the Sequential Forward Floating Selection method.
Stochastic approaches entail the use of, e.g. Genetic Algorithms (GA) \cite{Katoch2021}, to find the optimal wavelengths. Using stochastic methods seems to be the most widely used method for selecting wavelengths in the literature. The authors in \cite{Arifler2015} and \cite{Chauvin2022} used a genetic algorithm and simulated annealing \cite{Kirkpatrick1983} method to find optimal wavelengths when using the modified BLL and an extended version thereof, respectively. The work \cite{Martinez2019} also used different stochastic algorithms to find the optimal wavelengths in a hyperspectral imaging scenario of brain tumors, including a Genetic Algorithm, Particle Swarm Optimization \cite{Perez2007}, and Ant Colony Optimization \cite{Sharma2018}. Another possibility is using the Differential Evolution algorithm, as shown previously in \cite{An2015, Storn1997}.
%Another algorithmic variant is the use of optimal methods \cite{Jain1997}. Such algorithms assume monotonicity, i.e., a larger set $X$ implies better performance. This is expressed with the condition $$J(A\cup B)\geq J(A)$$ for wavelength subsets $A,B$ when maximizing $J$. There are experiments hinting that this class of algorithms can perform well even when monotonicity is not guaranteed \cite{Jain1997}.
The above algorithms can be used for any sensible choice of the target function $J$ to be optimized for. An alternative viewpoint on feature selection, especially with regards to multispectral and hyperspectral imaging, can also be found in the literature \cite{Ayala2022,Guyon2003}. According to it, we can differentiate between 'wrapper' and 'filter' methods. Wrapper methods have the goal of maximizing or minimizing some target performance metric, which is equivalent to the target function $J$ formulation we have seen previously. Filters determine the features as a pre-processing step and are therefore unaware of any task $J$ that might be imposed. %Embedded methods are used directly during the training process of a Machine Learning method, which falls out of scope in this work as we largely focus on traditional optimization methods.
Having seen different definitions for feature and wavelength selection, we will now devote ourselves to looking at more concrete examples.
%of wrapper methods with their chosen task $J$ and filter methods.
For hyperspectral imaging, we divide the methods into three distinct categories: methods that have the goal of preserving inferred molecular changes, methods that focus on model-orthogonality and approaches focusing on data-orthogonality. These are explained in greater detail in the following sections.
\subsubsection{Preservation of Inferred Molecular Changes}\label{sec:preservation-concentrations}
One intuitive and widely used approach to select wavelengths is to base the selection process on the preservation of inferred molecular concentrations from the complete wavelength range \cite{Arifler2015, Chauvin2022, Ayala2022}. The most relevant example from the literature for this work is \cite{Arifler2015}, as it selects wavelengths within the context of inferring concentrations from broadband near-infrared spectroscopy (bNIRS) of piglets experiencing hypoxia-ischemia (HI) via the MBLL formulation. The target function $J$ to minimize was chosen as
\begin{equation}
J(Z) = \text{NRMSE}\left(\Delta c-\Delta c_{Z}\right) = \text{NRMSE}\left(M^{\dagger}\Delta A-M_{Z}^{\dagger}\Delta A_{Z}\right).
\end{equation}
For some subset $Z$ of wavelengths, the function $J$ computes the normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE) between the inferred concentrations $\Delta c$ obtained by using the MBLL with all available wavelengths, and the concentrations $\Delta c_Z$ obtained only by using the wavelenghts in $Z$. The concentrations can be inferred as we previously described in equation \ref{eq:cPI}, noting that $M_Z^{\dagger}$ and $\Delta A_{Z}$ are the absorption matrix and the attenuation vector only with the rows that correspond to the wavelengths in $Z$.
%The normalization of the RMSE in \cite{Arifler2015} is performed to rescale the errors w.r.t. the differences in magnitude of the different molecules, as e.g. differences in magnitude between haemoglobin and cytochrome-c-oxidase during HI are widely known \cite{Kaynezhad2019}.
As the concentrations are inferred for multiple timepoints, the above definition is extended to
\begin{equation}
J(Z) = \text{NRMSE}\left[ \sum_{t_{i}=1}^{t_{n}} \left( \Delta c(t_i)-\Delta c_{Z}(t_i) \right) \right]
\end{equation}
for all timepoints $t_i=1,\dots,t_n.$ A more detailed overview of different selected wavelengths specifically for the bNIRS HI piglet scenario is provided in \cite{Bale2016}.
\subsubsection{Model Orthogonality-Based Approaches}\label{sec:model-orthogonality}
An alternative approach is to choose a function $J$ that is directly connected to the physical model being used and maximise the orthogonality within model features. A more concrete example with the BLL (and modifications thereof) would be e.g. the maximization of orthogonality of the absorption features or the maximization of posedness for the inverse problem \cite{Luke2013,Marois2018,Eames2008,Sun2022,Corlu2003,Corlu2005,Correia2010,Arridge1998,Mazhar2010}.
In \cite{Marois2018,Corlu2003,Luke2013,Mazhar2010}, the wavelengths are chosen based on a criterion $J$ using the singular values of the absorption matrix $M$. The magnitude of singular values is known to describe orthogonality \cite{Marois2018}, and therefore, one can consider the preservation of the magnitude of the singular values as a possible wavelength selection criterion.
The motivation of such approaches is that maximizing the orthogonality of the spectra in $M'$ should remove any wavelengths that contain redundant spectral information.
The typical choice of $J$ is the maximization of the minimum singular value \cite{Luke2013} or of the condition number \cite{Corlu2003,Luke2013,Mazhar2010}, as described by \cite{Marois2018}.
The authors in \cite{Marois2018} however argue that a better criterion is the product of singular values, as it uses all singular values instead of only using one or two as in the previously mentioned choices for $J$.
Finally, the algorithm used to maximize $J$ in \cite{Luke2013,Marois2018,Luke2014} resembles the classical SBS algorithm introduced in section \ref{sec:current-methods}.
For our study, we apply the SBS algorithm to the absorption matrix having the product of singular values as the optimization objective.
%Alternatively, it is also possible to include an additional criterion to reduce the ill-posedness of the problem \cite{Eames2008,Arridge1998,Corlu2003,Corlu2005}, by also minimizing $$R=|| I - M'M'^{\dagger}||$$ where $I$ is the identity matrix. The best case we can expect is $M'^{\dagger} = M'^{-1}$ and therefore $R=0$.
%Minimization of $R$ will improve the posedness and uniqueness of the inverse problem and reduce crosstalk in the inferred concentrations \cite{Eames2008}.
%More complex model variants beyond the simple BLL exist that will include further conditions besides maximizing the absorption matrix orthogonality and minimizing ill-posedness \cite{Correia2010}. %These remain beyond the scope of this work however.
\subsubsection{Data Orthogonality-Based Approaches}\label{sec:data-orthogonality}
We have discussed different wrapper methods and possibilities of choosing $J$; however, as mentioned above, there is also a different class of the so-called filter methods \cite{Chang2006,Nouri2016,Peng2005,Ding2005}. These methods are often based on choosing wavelengths that maximally preserve the information of the measured (e.g. multispectral or hyperspectral) data, independent of the underlying physical model. One might argue that such methods are not of interest for biophysical-model-based inference of changes in concentrations, as one would discard e.g. absorption features of the model. However, we believe that aligning model-based and model-independent wavelength selection approaches can yield valuable insights, such as evaluating the suitability of a particular model to the given spectral data, or identifying the presence of unmodeled physical phenomena and hidden endmembers (e.g. chromophores).
In this work, we resort to the SBS algorithm to optimise for data orthogonality. In contrast to the model orthogonality, the matrix for which we compute the singular values is composed of measured attenuation spectra $\Delta A$.
Essentially, every column of the matrix contains a spectrum from the spectroscopy dataset.
The algorithm will select bands at which the spectra across the dataset differ most, explaining the largest variability in the dataset. We believe the selected bands will likely be the most useful for the downstream task, e.g. tissue status classification.
%Across the literature, there are different methodologies targeting preservation of information. There exist methods preserving maximum variability in the image by computing the so-called Optimum Index Factor (OIF) \cite{Nouri2016,Chavez1984}. Alternatively, there are methods that are derived from the Constrained Energy Minimization (CEM) \cite{Chang2006,Nouri2016} or minimal-redundancy-maximal-relevance (mRMR) \cite{Lu2015,Peng2005,Ding2005} techniques. All such methods follow the same goal of finding the bands with the "highest information" content while also reducing the correlation within the subset of selected wavelengths (i.e. being "orthogonal" to each other). The difference between these methods lies in the underlying assumptions and definitions of "information content" and orthogonality.
%In this work, we resort to the SBS algorithm to optimise for data orthogonality. In contrast to the model orthogonality, the matrix for which we compute the singular values is composed of measured attenuation spectra $\Delta A$.
%Essentially, every column of the matrix contains a spectrum from the spectroscopy dataset.
%The algorithm will select bands at which the spectra across the dataset differ most, explaining the largest variability in the dataset. We believe the selected bands will likely be the most useful for the downstream task, e.g. tissue status classification.
%The definition of preserving information varies across literature, as there are very different possibilities to achieving this. One of the easiest methods, shown in \cite{Nouri2016}, is to use statistical approaches, preserving maximum variability in the image. We can follow the definition of a hyperspectral image from \cite{Chang2006}, where we consider the $l$-th band $B_{l}\in\mathbb{R}^{MxN}$ of a hyperspectral image with $L$ measured wavelengths, and each band having $MxN$ pixels. The hyperspectrOptimum Index Factor (OIF) \cite{Nouri2016,Chavez1984}:al image is then defined as $\left\{ B_{l}\right\} _{l=1}^{L}$. Selecting the best $k$ wavelengths with the approach of \cite{Nouri2016} follows setting up a variability criterion $C$, and computing this criterion for each wavelength combination. One example of such criterion $C$ is the Optimum Index Factor (OIF) \cite{Nouri2016,Chavez1984}:
%\begin{equation}
% OIF(X)=\frac{\sum\limits_{i \in X}\sigma_{i}}{\sum\limits_{i \in X}\sum\limits_{j \in X, j \not= i}\vert\rho_{i,j}\vert}
%\end{equation}
%for a subset of selected wavelengths $X$, with $\sigma_i$ the variance of band $B_i$, and $|\rho_{i,j}|$ the absolute value of the correlation coefficient between band $B_i$ and $B_j$. The subset of wavelengths $X$, which maximizes $OIF$, maximizes the variance contained in the data, and minimizes the correlation between the chosen wavelengths.
%Another approach in hyperspectral imaging to obtain wavelengths maximizing data orthogonality is the Constrained Band Selection (CBS) method \cite{Chang2006,Nouri2016}, and modifications thereof that allow for faster computation in practical high-dimensional hyperspectral imaging scenarios. We will specifically consider the Constrained Energy Minimization (CEM) based method of CBS. Given a hyperspectral image $\left\{ B_{l}\right\} _{l=1}^{L}$, we start by flattening all $B_l$ such that $b_{l}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\cdot N}$. We then search for a weight vector $w_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\cdot N}$ that minimizes the output $o_j$, where
%\begin{equation}
%o_j = \frac{1}{L}\sum_{l=1}^{L}\left(w_{j}^{T}b_{l}\right)^{2} \text{ with }b_{j}^{T}w_{j}=1.
%\end{equation}
%Such minimization can intuitively be interpreted as finding a filter $w_j$ that maximally preserves the band $B_j$, while trying to cancel the rest of the bands. This filter weight $w_j$ in itself is only an intermediate step for the wavelength selection. The quantity of interest for the task is
%\begin{equation}
%\rho_{j}=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{l=1}^{L}\left(w_{j}^{T}b_{l}\right)^{2}
%\end{equation} representing the least squares error. To understand the utility of computing $\rho_j$, imagine two distinct scenarios, namely one where $\rho_j$ is large and one where it is small. When $\rho_j$ is small, we have successfully disentangled $B_j$ from the rest of the bands. This means that the band has low correlation and connection to other bands, which could be the case if the band consisted solely of noise \cite{Chang2006}. If $\rho_j$ is large, the minimization was not successful in disentangling band $j$ from the other bands, which means this band is highly correlated to other bands. This can be the case if the selected band contains important information of some anatomical structure (e.g. blood vessels with high concentrations of haemoglobin), which will necessarily also be appearing in other bands. The wavelengths are then selected based on the $\rho_j$ with the largest value.
%We also provide a brief overview of the minimal-redundancy-maximal-relevance (mRMR) method \cite{Lu2015,Peng2005,Ding2005}, which is not a typical filter method as it requires classification labels of the downstream task to be provided. It is nonetheless interesting to conceptually discuss, as we believe that the ideas underlying this approach might be generalized for novel wavelength selection algorithms in the future. The method requires use of the mutual information concept defined as
%$$I(x;y)=\int \int p(x,y) \log \frac{p(x,y)}{p(x)p(y)}$$
%where $I(x;y)$ represents the mutual information, quantifying how dependent two random variable $x$ and $y$ are on each other. Their probabilistic density functions are $p(x),p(y)$, and their joint probability density function is $p(x,y)$. A more precise description of the mutual information criterion is not required to conceptually understand the mRMR framework. The goal is to find a subset of wavelengths $X$, where $X = \{\lambda_{1},\dots,\lambda_{n}\}$, maximizing relevance of the selected features
%$$\max D(S,c) \text{ where } D = \frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{\lambda_{i}\in S}I(\lambda_{i},c),$$ while also minimizing redundancy $$\min R(S) \text{ where } R(S) = \frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{\lambda_{i},\lambda_{j}\in S}I(\lambda_{i},\lambda_{j}).$$ This combination of criteria is expressed as $\max (\Phi) \text{ where } \Phi = D - R$. It is quite intuitive that a criterion only based on maximizing relevance $D$ would not be sufficient: many of the selected wavelengths in the subset $X$ will necessarily contain redundant information, and it is precisely the condition in $R$ reducing the wavelengths to a subset that is also mostly independent from each other.
%After reviewing three different methods (the OIF criterion, the CBS-SEM method, and the mRMR framework) a common pattern should become evident.
\subsection{A Unified Perspective}\label{sec:a-unified-perspective}
We have already formalized and discussed the different existing paradigms of preserving model-inferred concentrations, model and data orthogonality. We now extend those paradigms by including two additional methods of selecting wavelengths and
%Note that during the formal discussion of all approaches using the BLL, we are going to assume that the underlying model is the linear absorption-based BLL method (and not the previously developed non-linear scattering model). However, we mention explicitly when the non-linear scattering model is used.
visualize all approaches in Fig. \ref{fig:wavelength-selection}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{wavelength_selection}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Overview of the different presented wavelength selection methods, with notation as introduced in the text. Concentration Preservation has a similar counterpart that we denote "Spectral Fit Preservation". Model Orthogonality also has a respective counterpart, which is denoted as Data Orthogonality, while "Projection Maximization" is not directly comparable with the other methods.}
\label{fig:wavelength-selection}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Spectral Fit Preservation}
%We remember that the task of wavelength selection can be defined as a wrapper method, optimizing a criterion $J$ to find a subset $Z$ of relevant wavelengths. The absorption matrix $M \in \mathbb{R}^{n\cdot c}$, where $n$ is the number of all measured wavelengths and $c$ the number of chromophores, and the attenuation $\Delta A \in \mathbb{R}^{n\cdot s}$, with $s$ being the number of measured time points or pixels, are combined into the condition $\text{NRMSE}\left(M^{\dagger}\Delta A-M_{Z}^{\dagger}\Delta A_{Z}\right)$ for the task of preserving the concentrations inferred with all wavelengths. We remember that different stochastic algorithms can be used to solve such problem. In this work, one of those algorithms is going to be the Differential Evolution approach.
The number of wavelengths can be minimized to preserve the spectral fit obtained by using all wavelengths, which we coin here as "Spectral Fit Preservation". This method focuses on maximizing the model fit over the whole measured range with the reduced subset $Z$, similarly as mentioned in \cite{Bahl2023}. The optimization condition in this case consists of first computing the inferred concentrations with the reduced subset $\Delta c_Z = M_Z^{\dagger} \Delta A_Z$, then comparing with the inferred attenuation obtained over the full measured wavelength spectrum with concentrations $\Delta \tilde{A} = M \Delta c_Z$, and finally computing the error w.r.t. the measured attenuation over the full range: $\text{RMSE} \left[ \Delta \tilde{A} - \Delta A \right]$.
It might be tempting to assume that the methods preserving concentrations or spectral fit are equivalent, as we would expect a successful preservation of the inferred concentrations to also lead to high spectral fit with respect to the fully measured attenuation over all bands. However, note that the underlying mathematical operation differs. If we rewrite $M^{\dagger} \Delta A - M_Z^{\dagger} \Delta A_Z$ with typical naming conventions for better readability, i.e. assuming
\begin{equation}
A \coloneqq M^{\dagger}, x \coloneqq \Delta A, c \coloneqq Ax, A_Z \coloneqq M_Z^{\dagger}, x_Z \coloneqq \Delta A_Z, c_Z \coloneqq A_Z x_Z,
\end{equation}
we observe that the operation of preserving concentrations corresponds to minimizing $Ax - c_Z$. The spectral fit preservation method opposingly corresponds to the minimization of $A^{\dagger} c_Z - x$. The concentrations $c_Z$ inferred through the reduced wavelength set are simply subtracted from another vector in the former case, whereas being transformed linearly in the latter case. We argue that it is therefore an alternative method of finding wavelengths, differing from the classical method of preserving chromophores concentrations, that needs to be evaluated separately.
%We have also discussed in-depth methods of model and data orthogonality in sections \ref{sec:model-orthogonality} and \ref{sec:data-orthogonality}. We remember that model-based wavelength selection methods decomposed the candidate absorption matrix $M_Z = U \Sigma_Z V^T$ and computed some measure (e.g. condition number, or product of singular values) from $\Sigma_Z$. In figure \ref{fig:wavelength-selection}, we refer to this orthogonality measure from $\Sigma_Z$ as $O(\Sigma_Z)$. We will compare such model-orthogonality based measures with the other methods, checking how the obtained results are related to other methods. Additionally, we also test a data-orthogonality based approach. While we could use one the filter methods of section \ref{sec:data-orthogonality}, we instead decide to check the performance of a possibly novel method. The previously seen filter methods, using exclusively measured data, followed the same idea of finding a subset of wavelengths that has the highest information content, while reducing correlation within the subset. Arguably, the maximization of $O(\Sigma_Z)$ uses similar concepts, where we found those wavelengths within the absorption model that are most descriptive of the spectra. We therefore decide to reuse the same exact model-orthogonality method for the measured data. To do so, one can remove wavelengths (i.e. rows) from $\Delta A$, creating a candidate $\Delta A_Z$, and perform a singular value decomposition $\Delta A_Z = U \Sigma_Z V^T$. The goal is then to find the best subset that maximizes $O(\Sigma_Z)$ with $\Sigma_Z$ being the singular values of $\Delta A_Z$, instead of $M_Z$.
\subsubsection{Projection Maximization} We finally introduce a wavelength selection algorithm that we have coined "Projection Maximization". We noted before that one desirable property of wavelength selection algorithms might be to fit the measured signal "well". We have come closest to this objective by preserving spectral fit, minimizing $\text{RMSE} \left[ M \left( M_Z^{\dagger} \Delta A_Z \right) - \Delta A \right]$. However, the underlying assumption of the full measured attenuation $\Delta A$ being the ground truth to be achieved is not necessarily correct in all cases. For many applications, the underlying model $M$ is yet to be discovered \cite{Ezhov2023}, and certain bands might have information from chromophores or other effects that are not described by $M$ (i.e. scattering). The projection maximization method does not rely on $M$ and $\Delta A$ being the ground truth, but instead uses the already reduced versions $M_Z$ and $\Delta A_Z$. As such, the spectral fit preservation method $\text{RMSE} \left[ M \left( M_Z^{\dagger} \Delta A_Z \right) - \Delta A \right]$ can be rewritten to use the reduced versions of $M_Z$ and $\Delta A_Z$ to obtain $\text{RMSE} \left[ M_Z \left( M_Z^{\dagger} \Delta A_Z \right) - \Delta A_Z \right]$.
It may seem counterintuitive to use $M_Z$ and $\Delta A_Z$ as ground truth, since one could assume that $M_Z (M_Z^{\dagger} \Delta A_Z)$ is always equal to $\Delta A_Z$. However, the inferred concentrations $\Delta c_Z = M_Z^{\dagger} \Delta A_Z$ might not necessarily match the real concentrations from which the signal originated, particularly when the model insufficiently describes the measured attenuation. The model-inferred attenuation $\Delta \hat{A} = M_Z (M_Z^{\dagger} \Delta A_Z)$ will then significantly differ from the real measured attenuation $\Delta A$. We therefore think that removing wavelengths, which the model fails at describing well, is an alternative reasonable approach for wavelength selection. Given a spectroscopy dataset, it can be used during the exploration of different models $M$, as it gives insights into which model describes which bands well. We have coined the method as "Projection Maximization", since the operation $P = M_Z M_Z^{\dagger}$ follows the definition of a vector-space projection, and intuitively projects the measured attenuation into the space of model-based attenuations (i.e. attenuations that can be obtained through the model). The described projection maximization is effectively an optimization of the objective function $J$ that can be achieved with the different approaches we have previously seen in section \ref{sec:current-methods}. For consistency, we optimize the function with the SBS algorithm in this work
\footnote{Note that while the use of such projections in the context of the BLL or during wavelength optimization has been used in previous different settings, see e.g. \cite{Eames2008}, its use both for wavelength optimization and model exploration is novel.}.
%Finally, analogously to the best matching wavelength set, the projection maximization can also be used to select the most relevant chromophores.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Evaluation on Piglet Broadband NIRS Dataset \& Overview}
%Here we introduce the dataset. [TODO - it's Ilias' bNIRS piglets dataset that we always use \cite{Kaynezhad2019}].
In the following, we will evaluate the methods described above using broadband NIRS (bNIRS) spectra of 27 piglets' during an induced hypoxia-ischemia state \cite{Kaynezhad2019}, which has been described in \cite{ezhov2024shallow}. We use the first 1000 measured timepoints, which suffice to observe the induced HI and recovery state. The chromophores to perform model fitting were chosen as in \cite{Kaynezhad2019}, namely using oxyhaemoglobin, deoxyhaemoglobin and differential cytochrome-c-oxidase (diffCCO).
This dataset is particularly suited to benchmark wavelength selection methods of BLL-based methods in biomedical settings, as previous studies have identified specific wavelengths to infer chromophore concentrations while maintaining low estimation errors \cite{Arifler2015}.
We provide an overview of the presented methods in Table \ref{tab:method_results}, detailing the different requirements they have regarding their input. We highlight in particular our proposed integration with the other wavelength selection methods, as we believe they can complement each other based on the results we discuss below. We will further present the minimal set of wavelengths found across the different tested methods, as summarized in Table \ref{tab:found-wl-combined}.
\newcommand{\cmark}{\ding{51}}%
\newcommand{\xmark}{\ding{55}}%
\newcommand{\arrr}{\ding{72}}%
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\footnotesize
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.15}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{
>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{3cm}
>{\centering\arraybackslash}c
>{\centering\arraybackslash}c
>{\centering\arraybackslash}c
>{\centering\arraybackslash}c
>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{4.0cm}
}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} &
\makecell[c]{\textbf{Requires}\\\textbf{Model?}} &
\makecell[c]{\textbf{Requires}\\\textbf{Data?}} &
\makecell[c]{\textbf{Use for Band}\\\textbf{Selection?}} &
\makecell[c]{\textbf{Use for Minimal}\\\textbf{Wavelength Selection?}} &
\makecell[c]{\textbf{Proposed}\\\textbf{Integration}} \\
\midrule
Concentration Preservation &
\cmark & \cmark & \xmark & \cmark &
Compare selected wavelengths across methods. \\
Spectral Fit Preservation &
\cmark & \cmark & \xmark & \cmark &
Compare selected wavelengths across methods. \\
Model Orthogonality &
\cmark & \xmark & \xmark & \cmark &
Compare with preservation methods to ensure consistency with measured data. \\
Data Orthogonality &
\xmark & \cmark & \xmark & \xmark &
Avoid when molecular concentrations differ in scales. \\
Projection Maximization &
\cmark & \cmark & \cmark & \xmark &
Potentially identifies relevant wavelength bands based on selected model candidate. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Summary of the presented wavelength selection methods. Each method requires as input certain model assumptions and / or spectral data, and can subsequently infer a relevant band or minimal set of wavelengths. We finally summarize the purpose for each of the selected method. Legend: \cmark: Yes. \xmark: No.}
\label{tab:method_results}
\end{table}
\newcommand{\wln}[1]{\makebox[2.35em][c]{\strut #1}}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\footnotesize
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.15}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{
>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{0.8cm}
>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{3.6cm}
>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{1.6cm}
*{8}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.95cm}}
}
\toprule
\makecell[c]{\textbf{Card.}\\\textbf{$d$}} &
\makecell[c]{\textbf{Selection}\\\textbf{Criterion}} &
\makecell[c]{\textbf{Selection}\\\textbf{Algorithm}} &
\multicolumn{8}{c}{\textbf{Found Wavelengths [nm]}} \\
\cmidrule(lr){4-11}
& & &
\textbf{1} & \textbf{2} & \textbf{3} & \textbf{4} &
\textbf{5} & \textbf{6} & \textbf{7} & \textbf{8} \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{\makecell[c]{$3$}} &
Concentration Preservation &
Brute-force &
\wln{780.5} & \wln{829.9} & \wln{898.3} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
&
Spectral Fit Preservation &
Brute-force &
\wln{783.9} & \wln{829.9} & \wln{895.1} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
&
Model Orthogonality &
SBS &
\wln{780.5} & \wln{824.7} & \wln{899.6} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
&
Data Orthogonality &
SBS &
\wln{781.8} & \wln{810.9} & \wln{898.9} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{\makecell[c]{$4$}} &
Concentration Preservation &
Brute-force &
\wln{780.5} & \wln{813.5} & \wln{839.7} & \wln{895.1} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
&
Spectral Fit Preservation &
Brute-force &
\wln{780.5} & \wln{803.6} & \wln{852.8} & \wln{895.1} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
&
Model Orthogonality &
SBS &
\wln{780.5} & \wln{824.7} & \wln{825.3} & \wln{899.6} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
&
Data Orthogonality &
SBS &
\wln{781.8} & \wln{783.2} & \wln{810.9} & \wln{898.9} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{\makecell[c]{$5$}} &
Concentration Preservation &
Brute-force &
\wln{780.5} & \wln{813.5} & \wln{833.2} & \wln{891.9} & \wln{898.3} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
&
Spectral Fit Preservation &
Brute-force &
\wln{780.5} & \wln{803.6} & \wln{833.2} & \wln{875.6} & \wln{898.3} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
&
Model Orthogonality &
SBS &
\wln{780.5} & \wln{824.7} & \wln{825.3} & \wln{898.9} & \wln{899.6} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
&
Data Orthogonality &
SBS &
\wln{781.8} & \wln{783.2} & \wln{810.9} & \wln{814.8} & \wln{898.9} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{\makecell[c]{$8$}} &
Concentration Preservation &
Brute-force &
\wln{780.5} & \wln{787.1} & \wln{813.5} & \wln{816.8} & \wln{836.5} & \wln{839.7} & \wln{895.1} & \wln{898.3} \\
&
Spectral Fit Preservation &
Brute-force &
\wln{780.5} & \wln{787.1} & \wln{803.6} & \wln{820.1} & \wln{839.7} & \wln{869.1} & \wln{885.4} & \wln{891.9} \\
&
Model Orthogonality &
SBS &
\wln{780.5} & \wln{781.2} & \wln{824.7} & \wln{825.3} & \wln{825.9} & \wln{898.3} & \wln{898.9} & \wln{899.6} \\
&
Data Orthogonality &
SBS &
\wln{781.8} & \wln{783.2} & \wln{810.9} & \wln{814.8} & \wln{891.9} & \wln{897.0} & \wln{898.9} & \wln{899.6} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Found wavelengths across cardinalities $d \in \{3,4,5,8\}$ for four selection criteria in the fine-grained $[780\,\mathrm{nm},900\,\mathrm{nm}]$ scenario. Concentration and spectral fit preservation were optimized via brute-force search; model and data orthogonality were optimized via sequential backward selection (SBS). Wavelength indices refer to the ordered selected set for each cardinality.}
\label{tab:found-wl-combined}
\end{table}
% \newcommand{\wln}[1]{\makebox[2.35em][c]{\strut #1}}
% \begin{table}[H]
% \centering
% \footnotesize
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
% \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.15}
% \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
% \begin{tabular}{
% >{\centering\arraybackslash}p{3.6cm}
% >{\centering\arraybackslash}p{1.6cm}
% >{\centering\arraybackslash}p{0.8cm}
% *{8}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{0.95cm}}
% }
% \toprule
% \makecell[c]{\textbf{Selection}\\\textbf{Criterion}} &
% \makecell[c]{\textbf{Selection}\\\textbf{Algorithm}} &
% \makecell[c]{\textbf{Card.}\\\textbf{$d$}} &
% \multicolumn{8}{c}{\textbf{Found Wavelengths [nm]}} \\
% \cmidrule(lr){4-11}
% & & &
% \textbf{1} & \textbf{2} & \textbf{3} & \textbf{4} &
% \textbf{5} & \textbf{6} & \textbf{7} & \textbf{8} \\
% \midrule
% \multirow{4}{*}{Concentration Preservation} &
% \multirow{4}{*}{Brute-force} &
% $3$ & \wln{780.5} & \wln{829.9} & \wln{898.3} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
% & & $4$ & \wln{780.5} & \wln{813.5} & \wln{839.7} & \wln{895.1} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
% & & $5$ & \wln{780.5} & \wln{813.5} & \wln{833.2} & \wln{891.9} & \wln{898.3} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
% & & $8$ & \wln{780.5} & \wln{787.1} & \wln{813.5} & \wln{816.8} & \wln{836.5} & \wln{839.7} & \wln{895.1} & \wln{898.3} \\
% \midrule
% \multirow{4}{*}{Spectral Fit Preservation} &
% \multirow{4}{*}{Brute-force} &
% $3$ & \wln{783.9} & \wln{829.9} & \wln{895.1} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
% & & $4$ & \wln{780.5} & \wln{803.6} & \wln{852.8} & \wln{895.1} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
% & & $5$ & \wln{780.5} & \wln{803.6} & \wln{833.2} & \wln{875.6} & \wln{898.3} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
% & & $8$ & \wln{780.5} & \wln{787.1} & \wln{803.6} & \wln{820.1} & \wln{839.7} & \wln{869.1} & \wln{885.4} & \wln{891.9} \\
% \midrule
% \multirow{4}{*}{Model Orthogonality} &
% \multirow{4}{*}{SBS} &
% $3$ & \wln{780.5} & \wln{824.7} & \wln{899.6} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
% & & $4$ & \wln{780.5} & \wln{824.7} & \wln{825.3} & \wln{899.6} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
% & & $5$ & \wln{780.5} & \wln{824.7} & \wln{825.3} & \wln{898.9} & \wln{899.6} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
% & & $8$ & \wln{780.5} & \wln{781.2} & \wln{824.7} & \wln{825.3} & \wln{825.9} & \wln{898.3} & \wln{898.9} & \wln{899.6} \\
% \midrule
% \multirow{4}{*}{Data Orthogonality} &
% \multirow{4}{*}{SBS} &
% $3$ & \wln{781.8} & \wln{810.9} & \wln{898.9} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
% & & $4$ & \wln{781.8} & \wln{783.2} & \wln{810.9} & \wln{898.9} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
% & & $5$ & \wln{781.8} & \wln{783.2} & \wln{810.9} & \wln{814.8} & \wln{898.9} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} & \wln{--} \\
% & & $8$ & \wln{781.8} & \wln{783.2} & \wln{810.9} & \wln{814.8} & \wln{891.9} & \wln{897.0} & \wln{898.9} & \wln{899.6} \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% }
% \caption{Found wavelengths across cardinalities $d \in \{3,4,5,8\}$ for four selection criteria in the fine-grained $[780\,\mathrm{nm},900\,\mathrm{nm}]$ scenario. Concentration and spectral fit preservation were optimized via brute-force search; model and data orthogonality were optimized via sequential backward selection (SBS). Wavelength indices refer to the ordered selected set for each cardinality.}
% \label{tab:found-wl-combined}
% \end{table}
% Typical normalized measured spectra before and after HI for a piglet are shown in figure \ref{fig:piglet} (left).
% \begin{figure}[h]
% \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{piglet}
% \caption{Normalized piglet spectra from piglet HI dataset of \cite{Kaynezhad2019} before and after hypoxia (left), and inferred concentrations with unitary pathlength assumption (right). The timepoints at which the two spectra before and after HI were acquired are denoted with colored vertical lines on the right.}
% \label{fig:piglet}
% \end{figure}
% Model-inferred concentrations with this assumption are shown in figure \ref{fig:piglet}. We denote concentrations to have unit $[mM/cm]$ instead of the $[mM]$ unit due to the unitary path length assumption \cite{ezhov2024shallow}, since path length can be assumed to be semi-constant in the NIR range \cite{Kaynezhad2019}.
%\FloatBarrier
%Here we should also explain the unitary pathlength assumption, which is reasonable for the dataset, and refer to our previous paper \cite{ezhov2024shallow}.
\subsection{Concentration \& Spectral Fit Preserving Methods}\label{sec:concentration-spectral-fit-preserving}
\paragraph{Concentration preservation.} We perform an analysis of the bNIRS dataset between three different algorithms for the problem of preserving the inferred concentrations (with the NRMSE criterion): a brute force computation, the SBS algorithm, and the stochastic Differential Evolution (DE) method. We first use a coarse grid for the wavelengths, having measurements only at 22 equally spaced wavelengths, and only using 10 different time points per piglet to allow for reasonable computation times. The results for all three computation optimization algorithms are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:light-all-methods}. %The goal of this analysis is to compare the performance of the greedy SBS algorithm and of the stochastic DE method with the brute force approach.
%Note that our DE implementation does not use the combinatorial structure of the problem, which leads to substantially lower compute time than the brute force method.
%The purpose of this section is to solely do a preliminary comparison of the three methods, shown in figure \ref{fig:light-all-methods}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{concentration_error_light}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{selectedWL3}
\caption{Performance of preserving concentrations selection methods across all possible wavelength combinations, with an example of selected wavelengths. Left: NRMSE development across different cardinalities $d$ of the wavelength set, with corresponding NRMSE with three different algorithms: brute-force search, the SBS algorithm, and Differential Evolution. Right: Absorption of the three main chromophores (oxyhaemoglobin, deoxyhaemoglobin, and diffCCO, colored in black), compared to the wavelengths selected for the case $d=3$ from the three algorithms. The take-home message here is that beyond the [6,9] range of selected wavelengths, different algorithms result in different selections: below 6 wavelengths, brute-force search and Differential Evolution agree, while above 9 - brute-force search and SBS agree.}
\label{fig:light-all-methods}
\end{figure}
We found that the stochastic DE approach is able to outperform the SBS method when the number of desired wavelengths $d$ is about one-third (or less) than the number of all measured wavelengths $n$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:light-all-methods} (left) when $d=6$). The SBS method however outperformed the DE approach for large number of desired wavelengths $d$, in our experiments when $d>9$.
This finding is similar to what has been observed in literature with genetic algorithms \cite{Jain1997,Ferri1994}: GAs are known to fail on high dimensional problems, whereas sequential methods (such as the SBS, or SFS) are able to maintain good performance even with the curse of dimensionality. However, the SBS itself cannot be expected to perform well with a small number of desired wavelengths $d$, as iterative removal of wavelengths assumes the previous iteration to be the optimal set of wavelengths. This assumption is bound to increase the resulting error with each iteration.
%We will use SBS for Helicoid
We also give a brief comparison of the three optimal wavelengths found by all approaches in Fig. \ref{fig:light-all-methods} (right). Our findings are very much in line with the results from \cite{Arifler2015}, as the stochastic approach (GA in \cite{Arifler2015}, and DE in this work) obtains the same results as the brute force method for small number of wavelengths. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the optimal three wavelengths found through the brute force and DE method are also near the peaks of the three model-assumed chromophores, very similarly to the results of \cite{Arifler2015}. The SBS method finds similar wavelengths as the other two methods, with only the center wavelength differing from the oxCCO peak.
Having compared the different algorithms in a coarse setting (to allow for full brute force computation across any $d$-cardinality of wavelength sets), we now test the concentration and spectral fit preservation approaches at a higher resolution (namely measurements at 37 total wavelengths, and 40 timepoints per piglet), assuming $d \leq 10$ to allow for brute-force computation within reasonable time.
Firstly, we again analyze the performance of optimizing for the concentration NRMSE. In Fig. \ref{fig:concentration-spectral-copti}, we report the results of the observed NRMSE and spectral fitting RMSE across the three algorithms.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{concentration_spectral_concentrationopti}
\caption{Development of concentration NRMSE (left) and spectral attenuation RMSE (right) fitting error, when optimizing for the concentration NRMSE in a more fine-grained scenario (i.e. using higher spectral and temporal resolution) where $d\in[3,10]$, across the three main used algorithms (brute-force search, SBS, DE).}
\label{fig:concentration-spectral-copti}
\end{figure}
The error curve in Fig. \ref{fig:concentration-spectral-copti} (left) shows a similar trend to what we had observed previously. Note however that the spectral fitting error develops differently to the NRMSE, due to the previously discussed difference in linear transformation.
%This prompted us to optimize for the spectral fit itself, as we will see below.
The found wavelengths with the brute force method across different cardinalities $d$ are reported in Table \ref{tab:found-wl-combined} (see 'Concentration Preservation' rows). The results are presented in the same format as Table 1 from \cite{Arifler2015}, where we noticed very high similarity between the found wavelengths, as already hinted in the previous experiments.
% \begin{table}[H]
% \centering
% \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
% \toprule
% $d$ & \multicolumn{8}{c}{Found Wavelengths (via Concentration NRMSE)}\tabularnewline
% \midrule
% \midrule
% $3$ & $780.5$ & $829.9$ & $898.3$ & & & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $4$ & $780.5$ & $813.5$ & $839.7$ & $895.1$ & & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $5$ & $780.5$ & $813.5$ & $833.2$ & $891.9$ & $898.3$ & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $8$ & $780.5$ & $787.1$ & $813.5$ & $816.8$ & $836.5$ & $839.7$ & $895.1$ & $898.3$\tabularnewline
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \caption{Found wavelengths across different cardinalities $d$ with the brute-force method when optimizing for the concentration NRMSE.}
% \label{tab:found-wl-NRMSE}
% \end{table}
These found wavelengths by the brute-force method are close to the peaks of the absorption of chromophores, shown in an additional example in Fig. \ref{fig:8wl-time-copti} (left) and as previously reported in \cite{Arifler2015}. For this fine-grained scenario, we also report the computation time of the three algorithms in Fig. \ref{fig:8wl-time-copti} (right).
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{selectedWL8}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{concentration_time}
\caption{Selected 8 wavelengths (across the three main selection algorithms) with comparison to absorption properties of the system (left), and comparison of computational time for different cardinalities $d$ across the selection algorithms (right).}
\label{fig:8wl-time-copti}
\end{figure}
The SBS method has a substantially lower run-time than the other two computational approaches. Since the method removes wavelengths iteratively, the highest computational time is at the beginning of the algorithm when many wavelengths need to be removed. For small wavelength number, the approach has computational time in the millisecond-second range. The brute force method grows exponentially for larger $d$. The DE method is generally faster than the brute-force method, but significantly slower than the SBS algorithm. We interestingly note that the DE method can be slower than the brute force method, as seen especially for $d\in[5,7]$. The DE algorithm, compared to the brute force method or the SBS algorithm, does not exploit the combinatorial structure of the problem. As such, the parameter search space will be much larger. Apparently, in certain cases, this can lead to longer computational times than the brute force method. However, the DE algorithm strongly outperformed the brute force approach for $d \geq 7$, as it only requires to evaluate a fraction of solutions instead of all combinations.
%\begin{figure}[H]
% \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{0_14200}
% \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{7_14200}
% \caption{Spectral Fit with 3 and 10 wavelengths of piglet LWP492.}
% \label{fig:spectral-fits-copti}
%\end{figure}
\paragraph{Spectral Fit preservation.} We now analyze the performance of optimizing for spectral fit. The concentration NRMSE and spectral fit RMSE is reported in Fig. \ref{fig:concentration-spectral-sopti}, presented analogously to Fig. \ref{fig:concentration-spectral-copti}.
%Here comes the fitting with spectral, SBS method better with spectral fit. This is good news because SBS method is very quick
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{concentration_spectral_spectralopti}
%\caption{Development of Concentration NRMSE and RMSE fitting error of the attenuation, when optimizing for spectral fit RMSE.}
\caption{Development of concentration NRMSE (left) and RMSE attenuation fitting error (right), when optimizing for the spectral fit RMSE in the presented fine-grained scenario (i.e. using higher spectral and temporal resolution).}
\label{fig:concentration-spectral-sopti}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{0_1550}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{1_1550}
%\caption{Fitting using concentration NRMSE as optimization criterion}
\caption{Comparison of the BLL-inferred attenuations, using the concentration NRMSE as optimization criterion, via the three selection algorithms using 3 wavelengths (left) and 4 wavelengths (right).}
\label{fig:1550}
\end{figure}
We notice a smooth monotonically decreasing spectral RMSE and a less predictable behavior for the concentration NRMSE, being the opposite of what we had seen in Fig. \ref{fig:concentration-spectral-copti}. Importantly, if we observe the magnitudes of both errors in Fig. \ref{fig:concentration-spectral-copti} and Fig. \ref{fig:concentration-spectral-sopti}, we notice that they are quite similar.
This is despite the fact that
different optimization criteria are used (preserving concentrations vs spectral fitting). Interestingly, we noticed that the SBS method performs similarly to the brute force and DE method with respect to the concentration NRMSE, especially for small number of wavelengths $d$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:concentration-spectral-sopti} (left)).
Also, we qualitatively observed that the SBS can be on par to other methods in terms of spectral fit, when the fit is the optimization objective, see Fig. \ref{fig:1550}. When the concentration fit is the objective, the SBS can result in even more accurate fitting, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:1550s}.
% \begin{figure}[H]
% \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{0_1550}
% \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{1_1550}
% %\caption{Fitting using concentration NRMSE as optimization criterion}
% \caption{Comparison of the BLL-inferred attenuations, using the concentration NRMSE as optimization criterion, via the three selection algorithms using 3 wavelengths (left) and 4 wavelengths (right) for $t=1550$ (in a dataset where all measured timepoints across piglets were concatenated).}
% \label{fig:1550}
% \end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{0_1550_s}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{1_1550_s}
%\caption{Fitting using spectral fit RMSE as optimization criterion}
\caption{Comparison of the BLL-inferred attenuations, using the attenuation spectral fit as optimization criterion, via the three selection algorithms using 3 wavelengths (left) and 4 wavelengths (right).}
\label{fig:1550s}
\end{figure}
Selected wavelengths by optimizing for the spectral fit RMSE are again reported in Table \ref{tab:found-wl-combined} (see 'Spectral Fit Preservation' rows). When compared to the wavelength sets reported for 'Concentration Preservation', at $d=3$, we notice very small differences. Differences between the found sets became larger with increasing $d$, however with an absolute maximal distance of not greater than $3.4nm$.
% \begin{table}[H]
% \centering
% \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
% \toprule
% $d$ & \multicolumn{8}{c}{Found Wavelengths (via Spectral Fit RMSE)}\tabularnewline
% \midrule
% \midrule
% $3$ & $783.9$ & $829.9$ & $895.1$ & & & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $4$ & $780.5$ & $803.6$ & $852.8$ & $895.1$ & & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $5$ & $780.5$ & $803.6$ & $833.2$ & $875.6$ & $898.3$ & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $8$ & $780.5$ & $787.1$ & $803.6$ & $820.1$ & $839.7$ & $869.1$ & $885.4$ & $891.9$\tabularnewline
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \caption{Found wavelengths across different cardinalities $d$ with the brute-force method when optimizing for the attenuation spectral fit RMSE.}
% \label{tab:found-wl-spectralfitRMSE}
% \end{table}
\subsection{Model \& Data Orthogonality-based Method}
Next, we analyzed the model and data orthogonality approaches. The found wavelengths of the model orthogonality approach using the SBS method, solely removing wavelengths based on the product of singular values from the absorption matrix $M$, are again reported in Table \ref{tab:found-wl-combined} (see 'Model Orthogonality' rows). We notice high similarity, especially for $d=3$, with previously computed optimal wavelength sets from other methods, such as 'Concentration Preservation' and 'Spectral Fit Preservation'.
% \begin{table}[H]
% \centering
% \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
% \toprule
% $d$ & \multicolumn{8}{c}{Found Wavelengths (via Model Orthogonality - SBS)}\tabularnewline
% \midrule
% \midrule
% $3$ & $780.5$ & $824.7$ & $899.6$ & & & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $4$ & $780.5$ & $824.7$ & $825.3$ & $899.6$ & & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $5$ & $780.5$ & $824.7$ & $825.3$ & $898.9$ & $899.6$ & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $8$ & $780.5$ & $781.2$ & $824.7$ & $825.3$ & $825.9$ & $898.3$ & $898.9$ & $899.6$\tabularnewline
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \caption{Found wavelengths across different cardinalities $d$ with the SBS algorithm when optimizing for model orthogonality.}
% \label{tab:model-ortho-SBS}
% \end{table}
% \begin{table}[b]
% \centering
% \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
% \toprule
% $d$ & \multicolumn{8}{c}{Found Wavelengths (via Data Orthogonality - SBS)}\tabularnewline
% \midrule
% \midrule
% $3$ & $781.8$ & $810.9$ & $898.9$ & & & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $4$ & $781.8$ & $783.2$ & $810.9$ & $898.9$ & & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $5$ & $781.8$ & $783.2$ & $810.9$ & $814.8$ & $898.9$ & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $8$ & $781.8$ & $783.2$ & $810.9$ & $814.8$ & $891.9$ & $897.0$ & $898.9$ & $899.6$\tabularnewline
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% %\caption{Data Orthogonality with SBS, 100 timepoints per piglet, 8 mins compute time}
% \caption{Found wavelengths across different cardinalities $d$ with the SBS algorithm when optimizing for data orthogonality.}
% \label{tab:data-orthogonality-sbs}
% \end{table}
The case of $d=3$ is inspected closer in Fig. \ref{fig:model-ortho}, where we compared the inferred concentrations by using all available wavelengths with this set of $3$ wavelengths. Additionally, an exemplary spectral fit is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:model-ortho}. The three wavelengths are close to the three peaks of the chromophores, which was within expectations as the wavelengths are chosen solely based on $M$. This set of wavelengths is also able to match the original inferred concentrations and spectral fits well.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{_reduce_M_780_900}
\caption{Performance of wavelength selection using model orthogonality. The first plot shows the inferred concentrations by using all wavelengths (All WLs) compared to inferred concentrations using the 3 found optimal wavelengths (3 WLs). The second plot shows that the found wavelengths correspond to the peaks of the three chromophores used in the model. The third plot shows the spectral fit for one exemplary timepoint, comparing the BLL-inferred attenuation using all and the three selected wavelengths with the ground truth signal.}
% this ran in full resolution, compute time: <1s, running in parallel on giga
\label{fig:model-ortho}
\end{figure}
To test the data-orthogonality method developed in section \ref{sec:a-unified-perspective}, the SBS algorithm is used solely on the measured attenuations $\Delta A$. We used 100 timepoints per piglet in this scenario, which resulted in a compute time of around 8 minutes (running in parallel on two AMD EPYC 7452 32-Core processors). The found wavelengths are again reported in Table \ref{tab:found-wl-combined} (see 'Data Orthogonality' rows), and inferred concentrations and spectral fits are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:data-orthogonality-780}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{_reduce_D_780_900}
%\caption{Data Orthogonality, this ran in ::10, compute time: 7.5mins, running in parallel on giga. Not quite as good but encouraging for fingerprinting \cite{Ezhov2023}. Without N of NRMSE less sensitivity to CCO due to small concentrations}
\caption{Performance of wavelength selection using data orthogonality. The first plot shows the inferred concentrations by using all wavelengths (All WLs) compared to inferred concentrations using the 3 found optimal wavelengths (3 WLs). The second plot shows that the found wavelengths are near the peaks of the three chromophores used in the model. The third plot shows the spectral fit for one exemplary timepoint, comparing the BLL-inferred attenuation using all and the three selected wavelengths with the ground truth signal.}
\label{fig:data-orthogonality-780}
\end{figure}
The data-orthogonality found wavelengths qualitatively lead to some performance degradation in spectral fit and inferred concentration, which is expected as they have no information about the used model that performs the fitting. However, we found it surprising that the most informative wavelengths of this method are arguably close to all previously seen methods. We speculate that this approach suffers at finding the optimal wavelength at $825nm$, corresponding to the diffCCO peak, as CCO concentrations are considerably lower than hemoglobin. This necessarily leads to lower sensitivity to such low-concentration chromophores, compared e.g. to optimization with the NRMSE.
%Such data orthogonality based methods could however be used in datasets, where chromophores are unknown, to discover possible molecular changes. As we have discussed, there is considerable interest in fingerprinting chromophores solely from data \cite{Ezhov2023}, and we argue that the proximity of the found wavelengths to hemoglobin peaks is encouraging in further developing such approaches, comparing model and data orthogonality found wavelengths for the task of fingerprinting.
%\subsection{Data Orthogonality-based Method}
\subsection{Projection Maximization for Band Selection}
We finally present the projection maximization algorithm for the band selection.
%which we found able to automatically select the $[780nm,900nm]$ wavelength band without supervision.
Assuming the set of chromophores of interest for given data is known, such an algorithm can be useful in finding bands which the model can describe.
%As we will see below, the absorption-based BL model failed in this task for the wavelength range greater than $[780nm,900nm]$.
Using measurements from the $[740nm,900nm]$ range, we analyzed the found wavelengths by the previously explored methods (NRMSE optimization, model-orthogonality, and data-orthogonality). Note that the model cannot describe the $[740nm,900nm]$ range well due to more pronounced scattering effects (which are not considered by the standard linear absorption model we use here).
The NRMSE optimization selects wavelengths below $780nm$, Fig. \ref{fig:projection-nrmse}, similarly to the model-orthogonality and data-orthogonality methods, Fig. \ref{fig:projection-model-data}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{selectedWL3_740}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{0_1300_740}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{5_1300_740}
%\caption{NRMSE Optimization. Brute: [750.05945461 802.96789124 894.45619897], [743.41511355 760.01330323 793.08140558 802.96789124 806.25985761
%887.96965486 894.45619897 897.69660897]}
\caption{Selected wavelengths for the linear absorption model by NRMSE optimization in the $[740nm,900nm]$ range are not within the $[780nm,900nm]$ range (see first plot), which must deteriorate inferred concentrations due to mismatch in spectral fit between the BLL-inferred and GT attenuation below $780nm$, shown for different cardinalities $d$ in the second and third plot.}
\label{fig:projection-nrmse}
\end{figure}
Even though we observe a higher overlap between the found wavelengths across the conjunct methods, the chosen wavelengths fail to fit the observed signal well in the short wavelength range. We argue that these methods are not suitable for selecting wavelengths when there are physical effects not contained in the model $M$, which in practical scenarios might oftentimes be the case. Besides having unaccounted scattering effects, we could also imagine certain bands being dominated by a low signal to noise. A noise-free model would result in incorrect wavelength identification. In general, a correct spectral fit is paramount in obtaining sensible concentrations in any spectroscopic application. Both in Figure \ref{fig:projection-nrmse} and Figure \ref{fig:projection-model-data}, we qualitatively notice the spectral fit is unsatisfactory. Further, the diffCCO concentrations take positive values at the beginning of HI, which is unexpected as a monotonic decrease in diffCCO, compared to baseline, was observed in previous studies \cite{Arifler2015, Kaynezhad2019}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{_reduce_M_740_900}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{_reduce_D_740_900}
%\caption{Model and Data Orthogonality, this ran in full resolution, compute time: <1s, running in parallel on giga, 8 wavelengths: M->[757.36043563 758.0237545 758.68700542 814.81066048 815.46791558 816.12509921 898.99223711 899.63993619], D->[740.7554971 745.40912187 751.3875145 754.04282336 763.3278557
% 763.99056152 810.86563097 898.99223711], 8wls are sufficient, but the inferred concentrations are wrong: positive oxCCO not really physiologically realistic as well!}
\caption{Performance of wavelength selection with $d=8$ using model orthogonality (top) and data orthogonality (bottom) in the $[740nm,900nm]$ range, following the same figure structure as Fig. \ref{fig:model-ortho} and Fig. \ref{fig:data-orthogonality-780}.}
\label{fig:projection-model-data}
\end{figure}
We now compare the performance of selecting a smaller subset of wavelengths in the $[740nm,900nm]$ range with the projection algorithm. Obtained results for the two cases are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:projection}. When using the projection algorithm in the $[740nm,900nm]$ range, all wavelengths between $[740nm,780nm]$ were removed. The method also performed well when further extending the range to $[730nm,930nm]$, excluding particularly wavelengths between $[730nm,780nm]$ and $[900nm,930nm]$. These findings should not be surprising since we had observed mismatching spectral fits in the $[740nm,780nm]$ range. While this algorithm requires knowledge of model chromophores, it allows to automatically select fitting bands, which is paramount in correctly inferring changes of molecular concentrations.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{projection_algorithm_740}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{projection_algorithm}
%\caption{153 wavelengths (356 original, i.e. 0.5 factor), }
\caption{Selected wavelengths by the projection algorithm when selecting for $d=153$ for two different ranges: $[740nm,900nm]$ (left) and $[730nm,930nm]$ (right). The iterative removal starts with 244 and 306 acquired wavelengths for each range respectively, i.e. $d$ is halving the number of wavelengths of the second range.}
\label{fig:projection}
\end{figure}
%Finally, note that the projection algorithm did not seem suitable for selecting small number of wavelengths $d$, perhaps due to the underlying SBS algorithm. This is shown in table \ref{tab:projection}, where we found differences to the optimal wavelengths we had found in section \ref{sec:concentration-spectral-fit-preserving}. Further algorithmic variants might have to be tested, e.g. running the projection algorithm in a brute-force fashion instead of using the SBS method, or projection-based selection of bands with subsequent spectral fitting or NRMSE-preserving methods for fine-grained $d$-selection.
% \begin{table}[H]
% \centering
% \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
% \toprule
% $d$ & \multicolumn{8}{c}{Found Wavelengths (Projection Algorithm - SBS)}\tabularnewline
% \midrule
% \midrule
% $3$ & $794.4$ & $847.6$ & $875.6$ & & & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $4$ & $793.7$ & $794.4$ & $847.6$ & $875.6$ & & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $5$ & $793.7$ & $794.4$ & $836.5$ & $847.6$ & $875.6$ & & & \tabularnewline
% \midrule
% $8$ & $793.7$ & $794.4$ & $796.4$ & $836.5$ & $845.6$ & $847.6$ & $875.6$ & $876.2$\tabularnewline
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% %\caption{Projection with SBS, 100 timepoints per piglet, 98 seconds compute time}
% \caption{Found wavelengths across different cardinalities $d$ via projection maximization, using the SBS algorithm.}
% \label{tab:projection}
% \end{table}
%\subsection{Projection Maximization for Chromophore Selection (THINK IF we really need to include this in the paper)}
%Now, we demonstrate that analogously to selecting wavelengths, the projection algorithm analysis can be used to identify relevant chromophore sets. We first test the use of projection error for chromophore identification on the synthetic spectra. The synthetic spectra are generated using the BLL with the addition of Gaussian noise. The advantage of the synthetic spectra is that we know what the chromophore set that we used to generate the data is, so we can quantitatively analyse the selection quality.
% \begin{figure}[H]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{synthetic_spectra_noisy.png}
% \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{synthetic_chromophore_selection.png}
% %\caption{153 wavelengths (356 original, i.e. 0.5 factor), }
% \caption{Projection error allows the identification of chromophore set used to generate the synthetic spectra. Left: Randomly generated synthetic attenuation spectra (including Gaussian noise) by using the BLL which assumes oxyhemoglobin, deoxyhemoglobin, and diffCCO. Right: Normalized projection error of each possible chromophore set, with number of chromophores in the set $k$ displayed on the y-axis. Points in orange indicate chromophore sets that have the ground truth chromophore set used to generate the data as a subset.}
% \label{fig:chromophore-selection-1}
% \end{figure}
%We observe that the normalized projection error (scaling all errors by the minimum found error) is able to identify the chromophore set that was used to generate the synthetic data, see Fig. \ref{fig:chromophore-selection-1} and Fig. \ref{fig:chromophore-selection-2}. There is a significant projection improvement once the ground truth chromophore set has been identified. Also, note that the best-performing sets for $k<4$ (i.e. using fewer chromophores than in the ground truth) are subsets of the ground truth chromophore set.
% \begin{figure}[H]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{chromophore_candidate_increasing_k_synthetic.png}
% %\caption{153 wavelengths (356 original, i.e. 0.5 factor), }
% \caption{Best chromophore candidate for each $k$ and projection error for the synthetic case.}
% \label{fig:chromophore-selection-2}
% \end{figure}
%We then test this approach on the piglet bNIRS dataset. Fig. \ref{fig:projectionchrom} demonstrates that projection maximization indicates that oxy- and deoxyhemoglobin, diffCCO, and possibly water are reasonable chromophores to be used during composition inference.
%Using the elbow method, commonly used in Machine Learning, one can identify the chromophore set $\{ HbO_2, HHb, \text{diffCCO} \}$ as reasonable set for inference. We believe the error reduction to not be linear due to the smaller contribution of diffCCO in the real spectra.
% \begin{figure}[H]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{chromophore_selection_piglets.png}\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{chromophore_candidate_increasing_k_piglets.png}
% %\caption{153 wavelengths (356 original, i.e. 0.5 factor), }
% \caption{Projection error allows the identification of sensible chromophore set to be used for piglet bNIRS data. Left: Normalized projection error of each possible chromophore set, with number of chromophores in the set $k$ displayed on the y-axis. Right: Best chromophore candidate for each $k$ and projection error indicate that oxy- and deoxyhemoglobin, diffCCO, and possibly water are reasonable chromophores to be used during composition inference.}
% \label{fig:projectionchrom}
% \end{figure}
%Further tests will allow to find a metric to order the found chromophores.
% \subsection{Projections for Simultaneous Wavelength and Chromophore Selection}
% \begin{figure}[H]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{current_projection_chosen_set.png}
% %\caption{153 wavelengths (356 original, i.e. 0.5 factor), }
% \caption{Running projection maximization algorithm with SBS on each chromophore set independently with evaluation of projection error reveals once again hemoglobin and differential cytochrome-c-oxidase in the range $800nm-920nm$ as best matching chromophore set. This can effectively be used to select both a relevant chromophore and wavelength set in an unsupervised fashion.}
% \label{fig:chromophore-simultaneous}
% \end{figure}
% Adherence to the specifications listed in this template is essential for efficient review and publication of submissions. Proper reference format is especially important (see Section \ref{sec:refs}). For submissions to the Optica Open preprint server, many of the style and format guidelines described in this template are not applicable, although adhering to the instructions in this template will ease the process to convert a preprint to an Optica Publishing Group journal submission. You may find it helpful to use our optional \href{https://preflight.paperpal.com/partner/optica/opticapublishinggroupjournals}{Paperpal} manuscript readiness check and \href{https://languageediting.optica.org/}{language polishing service}.
% \section{Corresponding author}
% We require manuscripts to identify a single corresponding author. The corresponding author typically is the person who submits the manuscript and handles correspondence throughout the peer review and publication process.
% \begin{verbatim}
% \author{Author One\authormark{1} and Author Two\authormark{2,*}}
% \address{\authormark{1}Peer Review, Publications Department,
% Optica Publishing Group, 2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
% Washington, DC 20036, USA\\
% \authormark{2}Publications Department, Optica Publishing Group,
% 2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA\\
% \email{\authormark{*}xyz@optica.org}
% \end{verbatim}
% This format will generate the following appearance:
% \bigskip
% \author{Author One\authormark{1} and Author Two\authormark{2,*}}
% \address{\authormark{1}Peer Review, Publications Department,
% Optica Publishing Group, 2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
% Washington, DC 20036, USA\\
% \authormark{2}Publications Department, Optica Publishing Group,
% 2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA\\
% %\authormark{3}xyz@optica.org}
% \email{\authormark{*}xyz@optica.org}}
% \medskip
% If other statements about author contribution and contact are needed, they can be added in addition to the corresponding author designation.
% \begin{verbatim}
% \author{Author One\authormark{1,$\dag$} and Author Two\authormark{2,$\dag$,*}}
% \address{\authormark{1}Peer Review, Publications Department,
% Optica Publishing Group, 2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
% Washington, DC 20036, USA\\
% \authormark{2}Publications Department, Optica Publishing Group,
% 2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA\\
% \authormark{$\dag$}The authors contributed equally to this work.\\
% \authormark{*}xyz@optica.org}}
% \end{verbatim}
% This format will generate the following appearance:
% \medskip
% \author{Author One\authormark{1,\dag} and Author Two\authormark{2,\dag,*}}
% \address{\authormark{1}Peer Review, Publications Department,
% Optica Publishing Group, 2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA\\
% \authormark{2}Publications Department, Optica Publishing Group, 2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA\\
% \authormark{\dag}The authors contributed equally to this work.\\
% \authormark{*}xyz@optica.org}
% \medskip
% % \section{Abstract}
% % The abstract should be limited to approximately 100 words. If the work of another author is cited in the abstract, that citation should be written out without a number, (e.g., journal, volume, first page, and year in square brackets [Opt. Express {\bfseries 22}, 1234 (2014)]), and a separate citation should be included in the body of the text. The first reference cited in the main text must be [1]. Do not include numbers, bullets, or lists inside the abstract. Note that no licensing or copyright statement should appear on the manuscript itself. Such information will be added to the Accepted Manuscript, the published version, or the Optica Open preprint as part of production to ensure accuracy and consistency of appearance.
% \begin{figure}[ht!]
% \centering\includegraphics[width=7cm]{opticafig1}
% \caption{Sample caption (Fig. 2, \cite{Yelin:03}).}
% \end{figure}
% \section{Assessing final manuscript length}
% The Universal Manuscript Template is based on the Express journal layout and will provide an accurate length estimate for \emph{Optics Express}, \emph{Biomedical Optics Express}, \emph{Optical Materials Express}, \emph{Optica Quantum}, and \emph{Optics Continuum}. \emph{Applied Optics}, JOSAA, JOSAB, \emph{Optics Letters}, \emph{Optica}, \emph{Optica Quantum}, \emph{Optics Continuum}, and \emph{Photonics Research} publish articles in a two-column layout. To estimate the final page count in a two-column layout, multiply the manuscript page count (in increments of 1/4 page) by 60\%. For example, 11.5 pages in the Universal Manuscript Template are roughly equivalent to 7 composed two-column pages. Note that the estimate is only an approximation, as treatment of figure sizing, equation display, and other aspects can vary greatly across manuscripts. Authors of Letters may use the legacy template for a more accurate length estimate.
% \section{Figures, tables, and supplementary materials}
% \subsection{Figures and tables}
% Figures and tables should be placed in the body of the manuscript. Standard \LaTeX{} environments should be used to place tables and figures:
% \begin{verbatim}
% \begin{figure}[htbp]
% \centering\includegraphics[width=7cm]{opticafig1}
% \caption{Sample caption (Fig. 2, \cite{Yelin:03}).}
% \end{figure}
% \end{verbatim}
% \subsection{Supplementary materials in Optica Publishing Group journals}
% Our journals allow authors to include supplementary materials as integral parts of a manuscript. Such materials are subject to peer-review procedures along with the rest of the paper and should be uploaded and described using our Prism manuscript system. Please refer to the \href{https://opg.optica.org/submit/style/supplementary_materials.cfm}{Author Guidelines for Supplementary Materials in Optica Publishing Group Journals} for more detailed instructions on labeling supplementary materials and your manuscript. For preprints submitted to Optica Open a link to supplemental material should be included in the submission
% \textbf{Authors may also include Supplemental Documents} (PDF documents with expanded descriptions or methods) with the primary manuscript. At this time, supplemental PDF files are not accepted for partner titles, JOCN and \emph{Photonics Research}. To reference the supplementary document, the statement ``See Supplement 1 for supporting content.'' should appear at the bottom of the manuscript (above the References heading).
% \subsection{Sample Dataset Citation}
% 1. M. Partridge, "Spectra evolution during coating," figshare (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1004612.
% \subsection{Sample Code Citation}
% 2. C. Rivers, "Epipy: Python tools for epidemiology," figshare (2014) [retrieved 13 May 2015], http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1005064.
% \section{Mathematical and scientific notation}
% \subsection{Displayed equations} Displayed equations should be centered.
% Equation numbers should appear at the right-hand margin, in
% parentheses:
% All equations should be numbered in the order in which they appear
% and should be referenced from within the main text as Eq. (1),
% Eq. (2), and so on [or as inequality (1), etc., as appropriate].
% \section{Backmatter}
% Backmatter sections should be listed in the order Funding/Acknowledgment/Disclosures/Data Availability Statement/Supplemental Document section. An example of backmatter with each of these sections included is shown below.
% \section{References}
% \label{sec:refs}
% Proper formatting of references is extremely important, not only for consistent appearance but also for accurate electronic tagging. Please follow the guidelines provided below on formatting, callouts, and use of Bib\TeX.
% \subsection{Formatting reference items}
% Each source must have its own reference number. Footnotes (notes at the bottom of text pages) are not used in our journals. List up to three authors, and if there are more than three use \emph{et al.} after that. Examples of common reference types can be found in the \href{https://opg.optica.org/jot/submit/style/oestyleguide.cfm} {style guide}.
% The commands \verb+\begin{thebibliography}{}+ and \verb+\end{thebibliography}+ format the section according to standard style, showing the title {\bfseries References}. Use the \verb+\bibitem{label}+ command to start each reference.
% \subsection{Formatting reference citations}
% References should be numbered consecutively in the order in which they are referenced in the body of the paper. Set reference callouts with standard \verb+\cite{}+ command or set manually inside square brackets [1].
% To reference multiple articles at once, simply use a comma to separate the reference labels, e.g. \verb+\cite{Yelin:03,Masajada:13,Zhang:14}+, produces \cite{Yelin:03,Masajada:13,Zhang:14}.
% %Using the \texttt{cite.sty} package will make these citations appear like so: [2--4].
% \subsection{Bib\TeX}
% \label{sec:bibtex}
% Bib\TeX{} may be used to create a file containing the references, whose contents (i.e., contents of \texttt{.bbl} file) can then be pasted into the bibliography section of the \texttt{.tex} file. A Bib\TeX{} style file, \texttt{opticajnl.bst}, is provided.
% If your manuscript already contains a manually formatted \verb|\begin{thebibliography}|... \verb|\end{thebibliography}| list, then delete the \texttt{latexmkrc} file (if present) from your submission files. However you should ensure that your manually-formatted reference list adheres to style accurately.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we have presented an analysis of wavelength selection for optical monitoring using various methodologies, focusing on the extraction of chromophore concentration from living tissues as an application. We have shown that traditional methods, which preserve chromophore concentrations, yield similar optimal wavelengths to other methods reported in the literature (such as spectral fit preservation, or model orthogonality methods) when tested on our well-studied broadband spectroscopy dataset of piglets undergoing hypoxia-ischemia. While concentration preservation is the standard wavelength selection approach, we believe that it is important to ensure this alignment of selected wavelengths with other methods, such as spectral preservation (without a correct spectral fit to the raw data, concentration optimization alone can yield physically impossible biological estimations). We further show that purely data-driven wavelength selection methods, such as data orthogonality, can overlook important bands due to magnitude differences between chromophores. Because these methods optimize for high spectral variance, the subtle signals of low-concentration chromophores like cytochrome can be eclipsed by noise, causing the algorithm to erroneously prioritize highly noisy bands. However, in regions with a high signal-to-noise ratio, the alignment between model-based and data-driven wavelength selection methods can serve as an indicator of a biophysical model's suitability for the given spectral data.
We finally show that a novel approach, termed 'projection maximization', bridges the divide between model-driven and data-driven wavelength selection methods. This method identifies relevant wavelengths by projecting measured attenuations onto a selected model, yielding optimal wavelengths in a given dataset that satisfy model-driven constraints.
Overall, we believe that such a unified view could yield a potentially robust methodology for wavelength selection. One could first run projection maximization (or similar techniques for pre-identification of the optimal model-data matching subsets) to make sure that the biophysical model has enough capacity to describe real spectra. Subsequently, wavelength selection algorithms can be applied across the bands selected by the projection maximization to estimate a more reliable minimal wavelength subset.
%If there is no prior knowledge about the right model and/or no understanding about the set of chromophores, one could try running the data orthogonality approach for pre-identification of reasonable wavelengths as it selects the bands of the greatest variability in the data. Such bands are likely most useful for differentiating between tissue status.
%Further, if paired with a chromophore selection method, we argue that it could be used for determining suitable chromophores and bands given novel data with unknown composition in an unsupervised manner.
%After proofreading the manuscript, compress your .tex manuscript file and all figures (which should be in EPS or PDF format) in a ZIP, TAR or TAR-GZIP package. All files must be referenced at the root level (e.g., file \texttt{figure-1.eps}, not \texttt{/myfigs/figure-1.eps}). If there are supplementary materials, the associated files should not be included in your manuscript archive but be uploaded separately through the Prism interface.
\begin{backmatter}
%\bmsection{Funding}
%Content in the funding section will be generated entirely from details submitted to Prism. Authors may add placeholder text in the manuscript to assess length, but any text added to this section in the manuscript will be replaced during production and will display official funder names along with any grant numbers provided. If additional details about a funder are required, they may be added to the Acknowledgments, even if this duplicates information in the funding section. See the example below in Acknowledgements. For preprint submissions, please include funder names and grant numbers in the manuscript.
%\bmsection{Acknowledgments}
%The section title should not follow the numbering scheme of the body of the paper. Additional information crediting individuals who contributed to the work being reported, clarifying who received funding from a particular source, or other information that does not fit the criteria for the funding block may also be included; for example, ``K. Flockhart thanks the National Science Foundation for help identifying collaborators for this work.''
\bmsection{Disclosures}
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
%\bmsection{Data Availability Statement}
%A Data Availability Statement (DAS) will be required for all submissions beginning 1 March 2021. The DAS should be an unnumbered separate section titled ``Data Availability'' that
%immediately follows the Disclosures section. See the \href{https://opg.optica.org/submit/review/data-availability-policy.cfm}{Data Availability Statement policy page} for more information.
%Optica has identified four common (sometimes overlapping) situations that authors should use as guidance. These are provided as minimal models, and authors should feel free to include any additional details that may be relevant.
%\begin{enumerate}
%\item When datasets are included as integral supplementary material in the paper, they must be declared (e.g., as "Dataset 1" following our current supplementary materials policy) and cited in the DAS, and should appear in the references.
%\bmsection{Data availability} Data underlying the results presented in this paper are available in Dataset 1, Ref. [3].
%\bigskip
%\item When datasets are cited but not submitted as integral supplementary material, they must be cited in the DAS and should appear in the references.
%\bmsection{Data availability} Data underlying the results presented in this paper are available in Ref. [3].
%\bigskip
%\item If the data generated or analyzed as part of the research are not publicly available, that should be stated. Authors are encouraged to explain why (e.g.~the data may be restricted for privacy reasons), and how the data might be obtained or accessed in the future.
%\bmsection{Data availability} Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.
%\bigskip
%\item If no data were generated or analyzed in the presented research, that should be stated.
%\bmsection{Data availability} No data were generated or analyzed in the presented research.
%\end{enumerate}
%\bigskip
%\noindent Data availability statements are not required for preprint submissions.
% \bmsection{Supplemental document}
% See Supplement 1 for supporting content.
\end{backmatter}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% References %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Add references with BibTeX or manually.
% \cite{Oshina2021, giannoniphd, Giannoni2018}
%%%%%%%%%% If using BibTeX:
%\bibliography{sample}
\bibliography{bibliography}
\end{document}