Evaluating Physically Motivated Loss Functions for Photometric Redshift Estimation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical constraints have been suggested to make neural network models more generalizable, act scientifically plausible, and be more data-efficient over unconstrained baselines. In this report, we present preliminary work on evaluating the effects of adding soft physical constraints to computer vision neural networks trained to estimate the conditional density of redshift on input galaxy images for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We introduce physically motivated soft constraint terms that are not implemented with differential or integral operators. We frame this work as a simple ablation study where the effect of including soft physical constraints is compared to an unconstrained baseline. We compare networks using standard point estimate metrics for photometric redshift estimation, as well as metrics to evaluate how faithful our conditional density estimate represents the probability over the ensemble of our test dataset. We find no evidence that the implemented soft physical constraints are more effective regularizers than augmentation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it