A hybrid ensemble learning approach to star–galaxy classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There exist a variety of star–galaxy classification techniques, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. In this paper, we present a novel meta-classification framework that combines and fully exploits different techniques to produce a more robust star–galaxy classification. To demonstrate this hybrid, ensemble approach, we combine a purely morphological classifier, a supervised machine learning method based on random forest, an unsupervised machine learning method based on self-organizing maps, and a hierarchical Bayesian template-fitting method. Using data from the CFHTLenS survey (Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey), we consider different scenarios: when a high-quality training set is available with spectroscopic labels from DEEP2 (Deep Extragalactic Evolutionary Probe Phase 2 ), SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey), VIPERS (VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey), and VVDS (VIMOS VLT Deep Survey), and when the demographics of sources in a low-quality training set do not match the demographics of objects in the test data set. We demonstrate that our Bayesian combination technique improves the overall performance over any individual classification method in these scenarios. Thus, strategies that combine the predictions of different classifiers may prove to be optimal in currently ongoing and forthcoming photometric surveys, such as the Dark Energy Survey and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".