MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048729458 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/2/80

GRAVITATIONAL LENS MODELING WITH GENETIC ALGORITHMS AND PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZERS

2011· article· en· W2048729458 on OpenAlex
Adam Rogers, Jason Fiege

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationLens (geology)AlgorithmNonlinear systemOptimization problemMathematical optimizationRegularization (linguistics)Parameter spaceComputer scienceMathematicsPhysicsOpticsArtificial intelligenceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strong gravitational lensing of an extended object is described by a mapping from source to image coordinates that is nonlinear and cannot generally be inverted analytically. Determining the structure of the source intensity distribution also requires a description of the blurring effect due to a point spread function. This initial study uses an iterative gravitational lens modeling scheme based on the semilinear method to determine the linear parameters (source intensity profile) of a strongly lensed system. Our 'matrix-free' approach avoids construction of the lens and blurring operators while retaining the least squares formulation of the problem. The parameters of an analytical lens model are found through nonlinear optimization by an advanced genetic algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimizer (PSO). These global optimization routines are designed to explore the parameter space thoroughly, mapping model degeneracies in detail. We develop a novel method that determines the L-curve for each solution automatically, which represents the trade-off between the image chi-square and regularization effects, and allows an estimate of the optimally regularized solution for each lens parameter set. In the final step of the optimization procedure, the lens model with the lowest chi-square is used while the global optimizer solves for the source intensity distribution directly. This allows us to accurately determine the number of degrees of freedom in the problem to facilitate comparison between lens models and enforce positivity on the source profile. In practice we find that the GA conducts a more thorough search of the parameter space than the PSO.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it