Galaxy classification: deep learning on the OTELO and COSMOS databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. The accurate classification of hundreds of thousands of galaxies observed in modern deep surveys is imperative if we want to understand the universe and its evolution. Aims. Here, we report the use of machine learning techniques to classify early- and late-type galaxies in the OTELO and COSMOS databases using optical and infrared photometry and available shape parameters: either the Sérsic index or the concentration index. Methods. We used three classification methods for the OTELO database: (1) u − r color separation, (2) linear discriminant analysis using u − r and a shape parameter classification, and (3) a deep neural network using the r magnitude, several colors, and a shape parameter. We analyzed the performance of each method by sample bootstrapping and tested the performance of our neural network architecture using COSMOS data. Results. The accuracy achieved by the deep neural network is greater than that of the other classification methods, and it can also operate with missing data. Our neural network architecture is able to classify both OTELO and COSMOS datasets regardless of small differences in the photometric bands used in each catalog. Conclusions. In this study we show that the use of deep neural networks is a robust method to mine the cataloged 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".