An application of deep learning in the analysis of stellar spectra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spectroscopic surveys require fast and efficient analysis methods to maximize their scientific impact. Here we apply a deep neural network architecture to analyze both SDSS-III APOGEE DR13 and synthetic stellar spectra. When our convolutional neural network model (StarNet) is trained on APOGEE spectra, we show that the stellar parameters (temperature, gravity, and metallicity) are determined with similar precision and accuracy as the APOGEE pipeline. StarNet can also predict stellar parameters when trained on synthetic data, with excellent precision and accuracy for both APOGEE data and synthetic data, over a wide range of signal-to-noise ratios. In addition, the statistical uncertainties in the stellar parameter determinations are comparable to the differences between the APOGEE pipeline results and those determined independently from optical spectra. We compare StarNet to other data-driven methods; for example, StarNet and the Cannon 2 show similar behaviour when trained with the same datasets, however StarNet performs poorly on small training sets like those used by the original Cannon. The influence of the spectral features on the stellar parameters is examined via partial derivatives of the StarNet model results with respect to the input spectra. While StarNet was developed using the APOGEE observed spectra and corresponding ASSET synthetic data, we suggest that this technique is applicable to other wavelength ranges and other spectral surveys.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".