Strong Lensing Parameter Estimation on Ground-Based Imaging Data Using Simulation-Based Inference
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current ground-based cosmological surveys, such as the Dark Energy Survey (DES), are predicted to discover thousands of galaxy-scale strong lenses, while future surveys, such as the Vera Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) will increase that number by 1-2 orders of magnitude. The large number of strong lenses discoverable in future surveys will make strong lensing a highly competitive and complementary cosmic probe. To leverage the increased statistical power of the lenses that will be discovered through upcoming surveys, automated lens analysis techniques are necessary. We present two Simulation-Based Inference (SBI) approaches for lens parameter estimation of galaxy-galaxy lenses. We demonstrate the successful application of Neural Posterior Estimation (NPE) to automate the inference of a 12-parameter lens mass model for DES-like ground-based imaging data. We compare our NPE constraints to a Bayesian Neural Network (BNN) and find that it outperforms the BNN, producing posterior distributions that are for the most part both more accurate and more precise; in particular, several source-light model parameters are systematically biased in the BNN implementation.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it