CHEMICAL TAGGING CAN WORK: IDENTIFICATION OF STELLAR PHASE-SPACE STRUCTURES PURELY BY CHEMICAL-ABUNDANCE SIMILARITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Chemical tagging promises to use detailed abundance measurements to identify spatially separated stars that were, in fact, born together (in the same molecular cloud) long ago. This idea has not yielded much practical success, presumably because of the noise and incompleteness in chemical-abundance measurements. We have succeeded in substantially improving spectroscopic measurements with The Cannon, which has now delivered 15 individual abundances for stars observed as part of the APOGEE spectroscopic survey, with precisions around 0.04 dex. We test the chemical-tagging hypothesis by looking at clusters in abundance space and confirming that they are clustered in phase space. We identify (by the k-means algorithm) overdensities of stars in the 15-dimensional chemical-abundance space delivered by The Cannon, and plot the associated stars in phase space. We use only abundance-space information (no positional information) to identify stellar groups. We find that clusters in abundance space are indeed clusters in phase space, and we recover some known phase-space clusters and find other interesting structures. This is the first-ever project to identify phase-space structures at the survey-scale by blind search purely in abundance space; it verifies the precision of the abundance measurements delivered by The Cannon; the prospects for future data sets appear very good.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".