Despite the PSF model of AFM-IR being designed for scenarios where the absorber is fully beneath the surface, we used the FEM model to understand how an absorber that extends partially beyond the surface would behave in AFM-IR. Surprisingly, we observed minimal difference in the displacement profile and amplitude for a bead that is just below the surface and one that is half below and half above the surface, as depicted in Figure . In general there is a high level of agreement between the PSF model of AFM-IR and the FEM simulations, with a mean percentage difference between both models for integrated temperature and displacement data below 3% for all tested pulse widths and depth positions of the absorber (see Figure ), meaning that the simplifications of the PSF model do not noticeably affect its accuracy.