Improving the reliability of photometric redshift with machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In order to answer the open questions of modern cosmology and galaxy evolution theory, robust algorithms for calculating photometric redshifts (photo-z) for very large samples of galaxies are needed. Correct estimation of the various photo-z algorithms’ performance requires attention to both the performance metrics and the data used for the estimation. In this work, we use the supervised machine learning algorithm MLPQNA (Multi-Layer Perceptron with Quasi-Newton Algorithm) to calculate photometric redshifts for the galaxies in the COSMOS2015 catalogue and the unsupervised Self-Organizing Maps (SOM) to determine the reliability of the resulting estimates. We find that for zspec < 1.2, MLPQNA photo-z predictions are on the same level of quality as spectral energy distribution fitting photo-z. We show that the SOM successfully detects unreliable zspec that cause biases in the estimation of the photo-z algorithms’ performance. Additionally, we use SOM to select the objects with reliable photo-z predictions. Our cleaning procedures allow us to extract the subset of objects for which the quality of the final photo-z catalogues is improved by a factor of 2, compared to the overall statistics.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".