MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154547568 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf92b

Robust Assessment of Clustering Methods for Fast Radio Transient Candidates

2021· article· en· W3154547568 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisMetric (unit)Transient (computer programming)Set (abstract data type)Noise (video)Benchmark (surveying)Correlation clusteringVisualizationMeasure (data warehouse)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fast radio transient search algorithms identify signals of interest by iterating and applying a threshold on a set of matched filters. These filters are defined by properties of the transient such as time and dispersion. A real transient can trigger hundreds of search trials, each of which has to be post-processed for visualization and classification tasks. In this paper, we have explored a range of unsupervised clustering algorithms to cluster these redundant candidate detections. We demonstrate this for Realfast, the commensal fast-transient search system at the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array. We use four features for clustering: sky position (l, m), time, and dispersion measure (DM). We develop a custom performance metric that makes sure that the candidates are clustered into a small number of pure clusters, i.e., clusters with either astrophysical or noise candidates. We then use this performance metric to compare eight different clustering algorithms. We show that using sky location along with DM/time improves clustering performance by ∼10% as compared to the traditional DM/time-based clustering. Therefore, positional information should be used during clustering if it can be made available. We conduct several tests to compare the performance and generalizability of clustering algorithms to other transient data sets and propose a strategy that can be used to choose an algorithm. Our performance metric and clustering strategy can be easily extended to different single-pulse search pipelines and other astronomy and non-astronomy-based applications.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207