MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4382466934 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accf84

Pixelated Reconstruction of Foreground Density and Background Surface Brightness in Gravitational Lensing Systems Using Recurrent Inference Machines

2023· article· en· W4382466934 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandre Adam, Laurence Perreault-Levasseur, Yashar Hezaveh, Max Welling

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteUniversité de MontréalCentre for Research in Astrophysics of Québec
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds de recherche du Québec
KeywordsPhysicsGravitational lensArtificial intelligenceInferenceStrong gravitational lensingParametric statisticsMass distributionLens (geology)GalaxyComputer visionWeak gravitational lensingArtificial neural networkSurface brightnessConvolutional neural networkBrightnessParametric modelAstrophysicsRedshiftComputer scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modeling strong gravitational lenses in order to quantify distortions in the images of background sources and to reconstruct the mass density in foreground lenses has been a difficult computational challenge. As the quality of gravitational lens images increases, the task of fully exploiting the information they contain becomes computationally and algorithmically more difficult. In this work, we use a neural network based on the recurrent inference machine to reconstruct simultaneously an undistorted image of the background source and the lens mass density distribution as pixelated maps. The method iteratively reconstructs the model parameters (the image of the source and a pixelated density map) by learning the process of optimizing the likelihood given the data using the physical model (a ray-tracing simulation), regularized by a prior implicitly learned by the neural network through its training data. When compared to more traditional parametric models, the proposed method is significantly more expressive and can reconstruct complex mass distributions, which we demonstrate by using realistic lensing galaxies taken from the IllustrisTNG cosmological hydrodynamic simulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→