Hydra II: Characterisation of Aegean, Caesar, ProFound, PyBDSF, and Selavy source finders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a comparison between the performance of a selection of source finders (SFs) using a new software tool called Hydra. The companion paper, Paper I, introduced the Hydra tool and demonstrated its performance using simulated data. Here we apply Hydra to assess the performance of different source finders by analysing real observational data taken from the Evolutionary Map of the Universe (EMU) Pilot Survey. EMU is a wide-field radio continuum survey whose primary goal is to make a deep ( $20\mu$ Jy/beam RMS noise), intermediate angular resolution ( $15^{\prime\prime}$ ), 1 GHz survey of the entire sky south of $+30^{\circ}$ declination, and expecting to detect and catalogue up to 40 million sources. With the main EMU survey it is highly desirable to understand the performance of radio image SF software and to identify an approach that optimises source detection capabilities. Hydra has been developed to refine this process, as well as to deliver a range of metrics and source finding data products from multiple SFs. We present the performance of the five SFs tested here in terms of their completeness and reliability statistics, their flux density and source size measurements, and an exploration of case studies to highlight finder-specific limitations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".