Automatic alignment of multi-temporal images of planetary nebulae using local optimization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic alignment of time-separated astronomical images have historically proven to be difficult. The main reason for this difficulty is the amount of sporadic and unpredictable noise associated with astronomical images. A few examples of these effects are: image distortion due to optics, cosmic ray hits, transient background sources (super novae) and various artifact sources associated with the CCD imager itself. In this paper a new automated image registration method is introduced for aligning two time-separated images while minimizing the inherent errors and unpredictabilities. Using local optimization, the two images are aligned when the root mean square of the difference between the two images is minimized. The dataset consists of images of galactic planetary nebulae acquired by the Hubble Space Telescope. The aligned centroids inferred by the suggested method agree with the results from previously aligned images by inspection with high confidence. It is also demonstrated that this method is robust, sufficient, does not require extensive user input and it is highly sensitive to minor adjustments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it