Identifying Symbiotic Stars with Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Symbiotic stars are interacting binary systems, making them valuable for studying various astronomical phenomena, such as stellar evolution, mass transfer, and accretion processes. Despite recent progress in the discovery of symbiotic stars, a significant discrepancy between the observed population of symbiotic stars and the number predicted by theoretical models. To bridge this gap, this study utilized machine learning techniques to efficiently identify new symbiotic star candidates. Three algorithms (XGBoost, LightGBM, and Decision Tree) were applied to a data set of 198 confirmed symbiotic stars and the resulting model was then used to analyze data from the LAMOST survey, leading to the identification of 11,709 potential symbiotic star candidates. Out of these potential symbiotic star candidates listed in the catalog, 15 have spectra available in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) survey. Among these 15 candidates, two candidates, namely V* V603 Ori and V* GN Tau, have been confirmed as symbiotic stars. The remaining 11 candidates have been classified as accreting-only symbiotic star candidates. The other two candidates, one of which has been identified as a galaxy by both SDSS and LAMOST surveys, and the other identified as a quasar by SDSS survey and as a galaxy by LAMOST survey.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".