Machine learning in APOGEE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context.The volume of data generated by astronomical surveys is growing rapidly. Traditional analysis techniques in spectroscopy either demand intensive human interaction or are computationally expensive. In this scenario, machine learning, and unsupervised clustering algorithms in particular, offer interesting alternatives. The Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment (APOGEE) offers a vast data set of near-infrared stellar spectra, which is perfect for testing such alternatives. Aims.Our research applies an unsupervised classification scheme based onK-means to the massive APOGEE data set. We explore whether the data are amenable to classification into discrete classes. Methods.We apply theK-means algorithm to 153 847 high resolution spectra (R≈ 22 500). We discuss the main virtues and weaknesses of the algorithm, as well as our choice of parameters. Results.We show that a classification based on normalised spectra captures the variations in stellar atmospheric parameters, chemical abundances, and rotational velocity, among other factors. The algorithm is able to separate the bulge and halo populations, and distinguish dwarfs, sub-giants, RC, and RGB stars. However, a discrete classification in flux space does not result in a neat organisation in the parameters’ space. Furthermore, the lack of obvious groups in flux space causes the results to be fairly sensitive to the initialisation, and disrupts the efficiency of commonly-used methods to select the optimal number of clusters. Our classification is publicly available, including extensive online material associated with the APOGEE Data Release 12 (DR12). Conclusions.Our description of the APOGEE database can help greatly with the identification of specific types of targets for various applications. We find a lack of obvious groups in flux space, and identify limitations of theK-means algorithm in dealing with this kind of data.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".