Machine learning in APOGEE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. The vast volume of data generated by modern astronomical surveys offers test beds for the application of machine-learning. In these exploratory applications, it is important to evaluate potential existing tools and determine those that are optimal for extracting scientific knowledge from the available observations. Aims. We explore the possibility of using unsupervised clustering algorithms to separate stellar populations with distinct chemical patterns. Methods. Star clusters are likely the most chemically homogeneous populations in the Galaxy, and therefore any practical approach to identifying distinct stellar populations should at least be able to separate clusters from each other. We have applied eight clustering algorithms combined with four dimensionality reduction strategies to automatically distinguish stellar clusters using chemical abundances of 13 elements. Our test-bed sample includes 18 stellar clusters with a total of 453 stars. Results. We have applied statistical tests showing that some pairs of clusters (e.g., NGC 2458–NGC 2420) are indistinguishable from each other when chemical abundances from the Apache Point Galactic Evolution Experiment (APOGEE) are used. However, for most clusters we are able to automatically assign membership with metric scores similar to previous works. The confusion level of the automatically selected clusters is consistent with statistical tests that demonstrate the impossibility of perfectly distinguishing all the clusters from each other. These statistical tests and confusion levels establish a limit for the prospect of blindly identifying stars born in the same cluster based solely on chemical abundances. Conclusion. We find that some of the algorithms we explored are capable of blindly identify stellar populations with similar ages and chemical distributions in the APOGEE data. Even though we are not able to fully separate the clusters from each other, the main confusion arises from clusters with similar ages. Because some stellar clusters are chemically indistinguishable, our study supports the notion of extending weak chemical tagging that involves families of clusters instead of individual clusters.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".