StarUnLink: identifying and mitigating signals from communication satellites in stellar spectral surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A relatively new concern for the forthcoming massive spectroscopic sky surveys is the impact of contamination from low earth orbit satellites. Several hundred thousand of these satellites are licensed for launch in the next few years and it has been estimated that, in some cases, up to a few per cent of spectra could be contaminated when using wide field, multifibre spectrographs. In this paper, a multistaged approach is used to assess the practicality and limitations of identifying and minimizing the impact of satellite contamination in a WEAVE-like stellar spectral survey. We develop a series of convolutional-network-based architectures to attempt identification, stellar parameter and chemical abundances recovery, and source separation of stellar spectra that we artificially contaminate with satellite (i.e. solar-like) spectra. Our results show that we are able to flag 67 per cent of all contaminated sources at a precision level of 80 per cent for low-resolution spectra and 96 per cent for high-resolution spectra. Additionally, we are able to remove the contamination from the spectra and recover the clean spectra with a <1 per cent reconstruction error. The errors in stellar parameter predictions reduce by up to a factor of 2–3 when either including contamination as an augmentation to a training set or by removing the contamination from the spectra, with overall better performance in the former case. The presented methods illustrate several machine learning mitigation strategies that can be implemented to improve stellar parameters for contaminated spectra in the WEAVE stellar spectroscopic survey and others like it.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".