<i>Euclid</i>preparation – XXIII. Derivation of galaxy physical properties with deep machine learning using mock fluxes and<i>H</i>-band images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Next-generation telescopes, like Euclid, Rubin/LSST, and Roman, will open new windows on the Universe, allowing us to infer physical properties for tens of millions of galaxies. Machine-learning methods are increasingly becoming the most efficient tools to handle this enormous amount of data, because they are often faster and more accurate than traditional methods. We investigate how well redshifts, stellar masses, and star-formation rates (SFRs) can be measured with deep-learning algorithms for observed galaxies within data mimicking the Euclid and Rubin/LSST surveys. We find that deep-learning neural networks and convolutional neural networks (CNNs), which are dependent on the parameter space of the training sample, perform well in measuring the properties of these galaxies and have a better accuracy than methods based on spectral energy distribution fitting. CNNs allow the processing of multiband magnitudes together with $H_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm E}$-band images. We find that the estimates of stellar masses improve with the use of an image, but those of redshift and SFR do not. Our best results are deriving (i) the redshift within a normalized error of <0.15 for 99.9 ${{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ of the galaxies with signal-to-noise ratio >3 in the $H_{\scriptscriptstyle \rm E}$ band; (ii) the stellar mass within a factor of two ($\sim\!0.3 \rm \ dex$) for 99.5 ${{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ of the considered galaxies; and (iii) the SFR within a factor of two ($\sim\!0.3 \rm \ dex$) for $\sim\!70{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ of the sample. We discuss the implications of our work for application to surveys as well as how measurements of these galaxy parameters can be improved with deep learning.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 0.055 |
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".