A Framework for Obtaining Accurate Posteriors of Strong Gravitational Lensing Parameters with Flexible Priors and Implicit Likelihoods Using Density Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report the application of implicit likelihood inference to the prediction of the macroparameters of strong lensing systems with neural networks. This allows us to perform deep-learning analysis of lensing systems within a well-defined Bayesian statistical framework to explicitly impose desired priors on lensing variables, obtain accurate posteriors, and guarantee convergence to the optimal posterior in the limit of perfect performance. We train neural networks to perform a regression task to produce point estimates of lensing parameters. We then interpret these estimates as compressed statistics in our inference setup and model their likelihood function using mixture density networks. We compare our results with those of approximate Bayesian neural networks, discuss their significance, and point to future directions. Based on a test set of 100,000 strong lensing simulations, our amortized model produces accurate posteriors for any arbitrary confidence interval, with a maximum percentage deviation of 1.4% at the 21.8% confidence level, without the need for any added calibration procedure. In total, inferring 100,000 different posteriors takes a day on a single GPU, showing that the method scales well to the thousands of lenses expected to be discovered by upcoming sky surveys.
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".