MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379984808 · doi:10.3847/2515-5172/acdc29

Improving MCMC Convergence for Joint Astrometry and Radial Velocity Orbit-fits Through Reparameterization

2023· article· en· W4379984808 on OpenAlexaff
Tirth Surti, Lea A. Hirsch, Tabassom Madayen, Ziyyad Ali, E. Nielsen, Sarah Blunt, Jason Wang, Rodrigo Ferrer-Chávez, Bruce Macintosh

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Notes of the AAS · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadial velocityAstrometryPhysicsOrbit (dynamics)Markov chain Monte CarloConvergence (economics)Orbit determinationExoplanetBasis (linear algebra)Radial basis functionMonte Carlo methodOrbital elementsPlanetAstrophysicsComputer scienceAstronomyStarsAerospace engineeringGeometryMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The exoplanet orbit-fitting software package orbitize ! was initially designed to fit the orbits of directly imaged planets with relative astrometric measurements using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm. Since the publication of orbitize! v1.0, the ability to jointly fit radial velocities and astrometry has been incorporated. We first implemented a Basis class into orbitize! that enables users to add and fit in various orbit parameterizations. We then introduced a radial velocity-focused parameterization of the Keplerian orbital elements for the joint radial velocity and astrometry fits. We compared MCMC convergence speeds of the new radial velocity-focused basis to the original orbitize! standard basis for the system HD 190771, which has full orbital coverage in radial velocity data. We found a 16% faster convergence in time with the radial velocity-focused basis. We encourage users to consider using this basis when doing joint radial velocity and astrometry fits.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Notes of the AASSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207