Using machine learning to identify extragalactic globular cluster candidates from ground-based photometric surveys of M87
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Globular clusters (GCs) have been at the heart of many longstanding questions in many sub-fields of astronomy and, as such, systematic identification of GCs in external galaxies has immense impacts. In this study, we take advantage of M87’s well-studied GC system to implement supervised machine learning (ML) classification algorithms – specifically random forest and neural networks – to identify GCs from foreground stars and background galaxies, using ground-based photometry from the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope (CFHT). We compare these two ML classification methods to studies of ‘human-selected’ GCs and find that the best-performing random forest model can reselect 61.2 per cent ± 8.0 per cent of GCs selected from HST data (ACSVCS) and the best-performing neural network model reselects 95.0 per cent ± 3.4 per cent. When compared to human-classified GCs and contaminants selected from CFHT data – independent of our training data – the best-performing random forest model can correctly classify 91.0 per cent ± 1.2 per cent and the best-performing neural network model can correctly classify 57.3 per cent ± 1.1 per cent. ML methods in astronomy have been receiving much interest as Vera C. Rubin Observatory prepares for first light. The observables in this study are selected to be directly comparable to early Rubin Observatory data and the prospects for running ML algorithms on the upcoming data set yields promising results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".