Inpainting Hydrodynamical Maps with Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract From 1000 hydrodynamic simulations of the CAMELS project, each with a different value of the cosmological and astrophysical parameters, we generate 15,000 gas temperature maps. We use a state-of-the-art deep convolutional neural network to recover missing data from those maps. We mimic the missing data by applying regular and irregular binary masks that cover either 15% or 30% of the area. We quantify the reliability of our results using two summary statistics: (1) the distance between the probability density functions, estimated using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test, and (2) the 2D power spectrum. We find an excellent agreement between the model prediction and the unmasked maps when using the power spectrum: better than 1% for k < 20 h Mpc−1 for any irregular mask. For regular masks, we observe a systematic offset of ∼5% when covering 15% of the maps, while the results become unreliable when 30% of the data is missing. The observed K-S test p-values favor the null hypothesis that the reconstructed and the ground-truth maps are drawn from the same underlying distribution when irregular masks are used. For regular-shaped masks, on the other hand, we find a strong evidence that the two distributions do not match each other. Finally, we use the model, trained on gas temperature maps, to inpaint maps from fields not used during model training. We find that, visually, our model is able to reconstruct the missing pixels from the maps of those fields with great accuracy, although its performance using summary statistics depends strongly on the considered field.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".