Photometric redshift estimation with convolutional neural networks and galaxy images: Case study of resolving biases in data-driven methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep-learning models have been increasingly exploited in astrophysical studies, but these data-driven algorithms are prone to producing biased outputs that are detrimental for subsequent analyses. In this work, we investigate two main forms of biases: class-dependent residuals, and mode collapse. We do this in a case study, in which we estimate photometric redshift as a classification problem using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) trained with galaxy images and associated spectroscopic redshifts. We focus on point estimates and propose a set of consecutive steps for resolving the two biases based on CNN models, involving representation learning with multichannel outputs, balancing the training data, and leveraging soft labels. The residuals can be viewed as a function of spectroscopic redshift or photometric redshift, and the biases with respect to these two definitions are incompatible and should be treated individually. We suggest that a prerequisite for resolving biases in photometric space is resolving biases in spectroscopic space. Experiments show that our methods can better control biases than benchmark methods, and they are robust in various implementing and training conditions with high-quality data. Our methods hold promises for future cosmological surveys that require a good constraint of biases, and they may be applied to regression problems and other studies that make use of data-driven models. Nonetheless, the bias-variance tradeoff and the requirement of sufficient statistics suggest that we need better methods and optimized data usage strategies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".