Predicting interloper fraction with graph neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Upcoming emission-line spectroscopic surveys, such as Euclid and the Roman Space Telescope, will be affected by systematic effects due to the presence of interlopers: galaxies whose redshift and distance from us are miscalculated due to line confusion in their emission spectra. Particularly pernicious are interlopers involving the confusion between two lines with close emitted wavelengths, like Hβ emitters confused as [O iii], since those are strongly spatially correlated with the target galaxies. They introduce a particular pattern in the 3D distribution of the observed galaxy catalog that can shift the position of the BAO peak in the galaxy correlation function and bias any cosmological analysis performed with that sample. Here we present a novel method to predict the fraction of interlopers in a galaxy catalog, using Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to learn the posterior distribution of the interloper fraction while marginalizing over cosmology and galaxy bias. The method is developed using simulations with halos acting as a proxy for galaxies. The GNN can infer the mean and standard deviation of the posterior distribution of interloper fraction using small-scale information that is usually not considered in cosmological analyses. The injection of large-scale information into the graph as a global attribute improves the performance of the GNN when marginalizing over cosmology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".