Survey of Gravitationally-lensed Objects in HSC Imaging (SuGOHI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context.Strong lenses are extremely useful probes of the distribution of matter on galaxy and cluster scales at cosmological distances, however, they are rare and difficult to find. The number of currently known lenses is on the order of 1000. Aims.The aim of this study is to use crowdsourcing to carry out a lens search targeting massive galaxies selected from over 442 square degrees of photometric data from the Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) survey. Methods.Based on the S16A internal data release of the HSC survey, we chose a sample of ∼300 000 galaxies with photometric redshifts in the range of 0.2 < zphot < 1.2 and photometrically inferred stellar masses of logM* > 11.2. We crowdsourced lens finding on this sample of galaxies on the Zooniverse platform as part of the Space Warps project. The sample was complemented by a large set of simulated lenses and visually selected non-lenses for training purposes. Nearly 6000 citizen volunteers participated in the experiment. In parallel, we used YATTALENS, an automated lens-finding algorithm, to look for lenses in the same sample of galaxies. Results.Based on a statistical analysis of classification data from the volunteers, we selected a sample of the most promising ∼1500 candidates, which we then visually inspected: half of them turned out to be possible (grade C) lenses or better. By including lenses found by YATTALENSor serendipitously noticed in the discussion section of the Space Warps website, we were able to find 14 definite lenses (grade A), 129 probable lenses (grade B), and 581 possible lenses. YATTALENSfound half the number of lenses that were discovered via crowdsourcing. Conclusions.Crowdsourcing is able to produce samples of lens candidates with high completeness, when multiple images are clearly detected, and with higher purity compared to the currently available automated algorithms. A hybrid approach, in which the visual inspection of samples of lens candidates pre-selected by discovery algorithms or coupled to machine learning is crowdsourced, will be a viable option for lens finding in the 2020s, with forthcoming wide-area surveys such as LSST,Euclid, and WFIRST.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".