Star cluster classification in the PHANGS–<i>HST</i> survey: Comparison between human and machine learning approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT When completed, the PHANGS–HST project will provide a census of roughly 50 000 compact star clusters and associations, as well as human morphological classifications for roughly 20 000 of those objects. These large numbers motivated the development of a more objective and repeatable method to help perform source classifications. In this paper, we consider the results for five PHANGS–HST galaxies (NGC 628, NGC 1433, NGC 1566, NGC 3351, NGC 3627) using classifications from two convolutional neural network architectures (RESNET and VGG) trained using deep transfer learning techniques. The results are compared to classifications performed by humans. The primary result is that the neural network classifications are comparable in quality to the human classifications with typical agreement around 70 to 80 per cent for Class 1 clusters (symmetric, centrally concentrated) and 40 to 70 per cent for Class 2 clusters (asymmetric, centrally concentrated). If Class 1 and 2 are considered together the agreement is 82 ± 3 per cent. Dependencies on magnitudes, crowding, and background surface brightness are examined. A detailed description of the criteria and methodology used for the human classifications is included along with an examination of systematic differences between PHANGS–HST and LEGUS. The distribution of data points in a colour–colour diagram is used as a ‘figure of merit’ to further test the relative performances of the different methods. The effects on science results (e.g. determinations of mass and age functions) of using different cluster classification methods are examined and found to be minimal.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".