Next Article in Journal
Initial-Model-Guided 3D Long-Offset Transient Electromagnetic Inversion for Concealed Vein-Type Ore Body Identification
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization of Hydrodynamics and Mixing Regime of a HydroFloat ® Cell
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Review

Beyond Traditional Methods: Machine Learning for Geochemical Baselines and Anomaly Detection

by
Georginio Ananganó-Alvarado
1,
Elizabeth Lam-Esquenazi
2,
Ítalo Montofré-Bacigalupo
3,
Rodrigo Rojas-Ardiles
2,
Angélica Flores-Bustos
1,
Carolina Flores-Bustos
1,
Brian Keith-Norambuena
1,* and
Jaume Bech
4,*
1
Department of Computing & Systems Engineering, Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta 1270709, Chile
2
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta 1270709, Chile
3
Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, Universidad Católica del Norte, Antofagasta 1270709, Chile
4
Soil Science Laboratory, Faculty of Biology, Universidad de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2026, 16(7), 700; https://doi.org/10.3390/min16070700
Submission received: 11 June 2026 / Revised: 29 June 2026 / Accepted: 1 July 2026 / Published: 3 July 2026
(This article belongs to the Topic Big Data and AI for Geoscience)

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) is increasingly applied to geochemical baseline estimation and anomaly detection in soils and sediments, yet the methodological conditions under which machine learning outperforms traditional approaches—and which preprocessing and validation decisions most consequentially determine that advantage—remain incompletely characterized across environmental and mineral exploration domains. A structured systematic scoping review of 146 records from the Web of Science Core Collection applied sequential filtering to yield 78 thematically eligible studies, from which 20 were prioritized through a composite index integrating age-adjusted citation impact, platform usage, and semantic relevance. Four cross-cutting findings emerge. First, performance gains in environmental applications were driven primarily by spatial model structure rather than algorithm selection: incorporating a spatial covariate derived from geographically weighted regression raised test-set explained variance from R2=0.80 to R2=0.96 for cadmium mobility prediction in a geochemically heterogeneous karst setting, a gain the source study supported with a held-out test set and a Monte Carlo analysis of sensitivity to data size. Second, isometric or centered log-ratio preprocessing was applied in the majority of mineral exploration studies (three of five classical and hybrid studies and four of five deep-learning studies) but in none of the seven environmental studies, representing a systematic methodological gap with direct consequences for covariate importance estimates under compositional closure. Third, Shapley additive explanations and accumulated local effects functioned as instruments of operational value, enabling element-specific anomaly threshold derivation, training sample diagnosis, and grid-cell anomaly type classification; this evidence demonstrates that the accuracy–interpretability trade-off commonly assumed in the machine learning literature is not fundamental in geochemical applications but contingent on algorithm selection. Fourth, 90% of the 20 synthesized studies (18 of 20 by study-area location—13 in China and five in Iran) were evaluated under within-domain validation designs, and the consistently high performance metrics reported should be interpreted as interpolation estimates rather than evidence of transferable predictive capability. Geographic diversification of training datasets and spatially explicit cross-regional validation are identified as structural prerequisites for regulatory-grade applicability.
Keywords: geochemical baseline; machine learning; compositional data analysis; anomaly detection; geochemical anomaly geochemical baseline; machine learning; compositional data analysis; anomaly detection; geochemical anomaly

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ananganó-Alvarado, G.; Lam-Esquenazi, E.; Montofré-Bacigalupo, Í.; Rojas-Ardiles, R.; Flores-Bustos, A.; Flores-Bustos, C.; Keith-Norambuena, B.; Bech, J. Beyond Traditional Methods: Machine Learning for Geochemical Baselines and Anomaly Detection. Minerals 2026, 16, 700. https://doi.org/10.3390/min16070700

AMA Style

Ananganó-Alvarado G, Lam-Esquenazi E, Montofré-Bacigalupo Í, Rojas-Ardiles R, Flores-Bustos A, Flores-Bustos C, Keith-Norambuena B, Bech J. Beyond Traditional Methods: Machine Learning for Geochemical Baselines and Anomaly Detection. Minerals. 2026; 16(7):700. https://doi.org/10.3390/min16070700

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ananganó-Alvarado, Georginio, Elizabeth Lam-Esquenazi, Ítalo Montofré-Bacigalupo, Rodrigo Rojas-Ardiles, Angélica Flores-Bustos, Carolina Flores-Bustos, Brian Keith-Norambuena, and Jaume Bech. 2026. "Beyond Traditional Methods: Machine Learning for Geochemical Baselines and Anomaly Detection" Minerals 16, no. 7: 700. https://doi.org/10.3390/min16070700

APA Style

Ananganó-Alvarado, G., Lam-Esquenazi, E., Montofré-Bacigalupo, Í., Rojas-Ardiles, R., Flores-Bustos, A., Flores-Bustos, C., Keith-Norambuena, B., & Bech, J. (2026). Beyond Traditional Methods: Machine Learning for Geochemical Baselines and Anomaly Detection. Minerals, 16(7), 700. https://doi.org/10.3390/min16070700

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop