lenstronomy II: A gravitational lensing software ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
lenstronomy is an Astropy-affiliated Python package for gravitational lensing simulations and analyses. lenstronomy was introduced by Birrer and Amara (2018) and is based on the linear basis set approach by Birrer et a. (2015). The user and developer base of lenstronomy has substantially grown since then, and the software has become an integral part of a wide range of recent analyses, such as measuring the Hubble constant with time-delay strong lensing or constraining the nature of dark matter from resolved and unresolved small scale lensing distortion statistics. The modular design has allowed the community to incorporate innovative new methods, as well as to develop enhanced software and wrappers with more specific aims on top of the lenstronomy API. Through community engagement and involvement, lenstronomy has become a foundation of an ecosystem of affiliated packages extending the original scope of the software and proving its robustness and applicability at the forefront of the strong gravitational lensing community in an open source and reproducible manner.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.022 |
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".