MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948963662 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ffb

Finding Strong Gravitational Lenses in the DESI DECam Legacy Survey

2020· article· en· W2948963662 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaosheng Huang, Christopher Storfer, Vikram Ravi, Andrew Pilon, M. Domingo, David J. Schlegel, S. Bailey, Arjun Dey, R. Gupta, David Herrera, S. Juneau, Martin Landriau, Dustin Lang, Aaron Meisner, John Moustakas, Adam D. Myers, Edward F. Schlafly, F. Valdés, B. A. Weaver, Jinyi Yang, Christophe Yèche

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstronomyGravitational lensGravitationAstrophysicsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We perform a semi-automated search for strong gravitational lensing systems in the 9000 deg 2 Dark Energy Camera Legacy Survey (DECaLS), part of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument Legacy Imaging Surveys. The combination of the depth and breadth of these surveys are unparalleled at this time, making them particularly suitable for discovering new strong gravitational lensing systems. We adopt the deep residual neural network architecture developed by Lanusse et al. for the purpose of finding strong lenses in photometric surveys. We compile a training sample that consists of known lensing systems in the Legacy Surveys and the Dark Energy Survey as well as non-lenses in the footprint of DECaLS. In this paper we show the results of applying our trained neural network to the cutout images centered on galaxies typed as ellipticals in DECaLS. The images that receive the highest scores (probabilities) are visually inspected and ranked. Here we present 335 candidate strong lensing systems, identified for the first time.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207