Identification of tidal features in deep optical galaxy images with convolutional neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Interactions between galaxies leave distinguishable imprints in the form of tidal features, which hold important clues about their mass assembly. Unfortunately, these structures are difficult to detect because they are low surface brightness features, so deep observations are needed. Upcoming surveys promise several orders of magnitude increase in depth and sky coverage, for which automated methods for tidal feature detection will become mandatory. We test the ability of a convolutional neural network to reproduce human visual classifications for tidal detections. We use as training ∼6000 simulated images classified by professional astronomers. The mock Hyper Suprime Cam Subaru (HSC) images include variations with redshift, projection angle, and surface brightness (μlim = 26–35 mag arcsec−2). We obtain satisfactory results with accuracy, precision, and recall values of Acc = 0.84, P = 0.72, and R = 0.85 for the test sample. While the accuracy and precision values are roughly constant for all surface brightness, the recall (completeness) is significantly affected by image depth. The recovery rate shows strong dependence on the type of tidal features: we recover all the images showing shell features and 87 per cent of the tidal streams; these fractions are below 75 per cent for mergers, tidal tails, and bridges. When applied to real HSC images, the performance of the model worsens significantly. We speculate that this is due to the lack of realism of the simulations, and take it as a warning on applying deep learning models to different data domains without prior testing on the actual data.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".