MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3027323145 · doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3030

Galaxy cluster mass estimation with deep learning and hydrodynamical simulations

2020· article· en· W3027323145 on OpenAlexafffund
Ziang Yan, Alexander Mead, Ludovic Van Waerbeke, G. Hinshaw, Ian G. McCarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsEuropean Research CouncilScience and Technology Facilities CouncilEuropean CommissionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeUniversity of British ColumbiaCompute Canada
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyCluster (spacecraft)Galaxy clusterConvolutional neural networkSmoothingHaloStar clusterProjection (relational algebra)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmComputer scienceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We evaluate the ability of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to predict galaxy cluster masses in the BAHAMAS hydrodynamical simulations. We train four separate single-channel networks using: stellar mass, soft X-ray flux, bolometric X-ray flux, and the Compton y parameter as observational tracers, respectively. Our training set consists of ∼4800 synthetic cluster images generated from the simulation, while an additional ∼3200 images form a validation set and a test set, each with 1600 images. In order to mimic real observation, these images also contain uncorrelated structures located within 50 Mpc in front and behind clusters and seen in projection, as well as instrumental systematics including noise and smoothing. In addition to CNNs for all the four observables, we also train a ‘multichannel’ CNN by combining the four observational tracers. The learning curves of all the five CNNs converge within 1000 epochs. The resulting predictions are especially precise for halo masses in the range $10^{13.25}\, \mathrm{M}_{\odot }\lt M\lt 10^{14.5}\, \mathrm{M}_{\odot }$, where all five networks produce mean mass biases of order ≈1 per cent with a scatter of ≲20 per cent. The network trained with Compton y parameter maps yields the most precise predictions. We interpret the network’s behaviour using two diagnostic tests to determine which features are used to predict cluster mass. The CNNs trained with stellar mass images detect galaxies (not surprisingly), while CNNs trained with gas-based tracers utilize the shape of the signal to estimate cluster mass.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→