MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308840617 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3314

3D detection and characterization of ALMA sources through deep learning

2022· article· en· W4308840617 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michele Delli Veneri, Łukasz Tychoniec, Fabrizia Guglielmetti, G. Longo, Eric Villard

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute for Translational NeuroscienceEuropean Southern ObservatoryAlberta Livestock and Meat AgencyEuropean School of Oncology
KeywordsLOFARComputer scienceResidualSkyPipeline (software)InterferometryConvolutional neural networkSubpixel renderingRemote sensingArtificial intelligencePhysicsAlgorithmPixelOpticsGeologyAstrophysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We present a deep learning (DL) pipeline developed for the detection and characterization of astronomical sources within simulated Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) data cubes. The pipeline is composed of six DL models: a convolutional autoencoder for source detection within the spatial domain of the integrated data cubes, a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) for denoising and peak detection within the frequency domain, and four residual neural networks (ResNets) for source characterization. The combination of spatial and frequency information improves completeness while decreasing spurious signal detection. To train and test the pipeline, we developed a simulation algorithm able to generate realistic ALMA observations, i.e. both sky model and dirty cubes. The algorithm simulates always a central source surrounded by fainter ones scattered within the cube. Some sources were spatially superimposed in order to test the pipeline deblending capabilities. The detection performances of the pipeline were compared to those of other methods and significant improvements in performances were achieved. Source morphologies are detected with subpixel accuracies obtaining mean residual errors of 10−3 pixel (0.1 mas) and 10−1 mJy beam−1 on positions and flux estimations, respectively. Projection angles and flux densities are also recovered within 10 per cent of the true values for 80 and 73 per cent of all sources in the test set, respectively. While our pipeline is fine-tuned for ALMA data, the technique is applicable to other interferometric observatories, as SKA, LOFAR, VLBI, and VLTI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207