Ensemble age inversions for large spectroscopic surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. Galactic astrophysics is now in the process of building a multi-dimensional map of the Galaxy. For such a map, stellar ages are an essential ingredient. Ages are measured only indirectly however, by comparing observational data with models. It is often difficult to provide a single age value for a given star, as several non-overlapping solutions are possible. Aims. We aim at recovering the underlying log(age) distribution from the measured log(age) probability density function for an arbitrary set of stars. Methods. We build an age inversion method, namely we represent the measured log(age) probability density function as a weighted sum of probability density functions of mono-age populations. Weights in that sum give the underlying log(age) distribution. Mono-age populations are simulated so that the distribution of stars on the log g-[Fe/H] plane is close to that of the observed sample. Results. We tested the age inversion method on simulated data, demonstrating that it is capable of properly recovering the true log(age) distribution for a large (N > 103) sample of stars. The method was further applied to large public spectroscopic surveys. For RAVE-on, LAMOST and APOGEE we also applied age inversion to mono-metallicity samples, successfully recovering age–metallicity trends present in higher-precision APOGEE data and chemical evolution models. Conclusions. We conclude that applying an age inversion method as presented in this work is necessary to recover the underlying age distribution of a large (N > 103) set of stars. These age distributions can be used to explore age–metallicity relations, for instance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".