MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3135046099 · doi:10.1145/3408877.3439692

Predicting Direction of Supernova Events Through the Use of Convolutional Neural Networks

2021· article· en· W3135046099 on OpenAlexaff
Tamik Zamaev, Muhammad Zubair, Alex Yuxuan Peng, Barry W. Pointon, Michał Aibin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutrinoSupernovaConvolutional neural networkPhysicsEvent (particle physics)Artificial neural networkData setSet (abstract data type)Range (aeronautics)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceAstrophysicsParticle physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manual supernova direction prediction is time-consuming and often does not allow enough time for telescopes to catch the supernova event. Using machine learning, it is possible to develop an algorithm that can quickly determine the supernova direction. In this paper, a machine learning approach to predicting the direction of supernova events are applied with promising results. Neutrinos are subatomic particles that are at least six orders of magnitudes smaller than the mass of an electron. Following Colgate and White's theory of supernova neutrino production, neutrinos emitted by supernovas can be detected before the first electromagnetic emissions can be detected. However, neutrino interactions with matter are minimal and feeble. They have no electric charge. This makes them difficult to detect. As part of this research project, we are using simulated data representing detected neutrino events from the Super-K observatory. We used 80% of the data as a training set and 20% was a testing set. Both feature and label values were normalized into the range between 0 and 1. We used a Convolutional Neural Network to process inputs from a 1D array representing the image containing event data. The overall results of the model (67% of the time, model prediction is within 5 degrees of the actual event, and 99% of the time, model prediction is within 10 degrees of the actual event) were similar to the currently used prediction methods. However, once the models are trained, the detection can be much faster, as the results can be obtained within seconds.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena→French-language works237,207→