MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389941871 · doi:10.1093/rasti/rzad056

A deep neural network based reverse radio spectrogram search algorithm

2023· article· en· W4389941871 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRAS Techniques and Instruments · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBreakthrough Prize FoundationAlfred P. Sloan Foundation
KeywordsSpectrogramComputer scienceAutoencoderAlgorithmRadio frequencyArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Data miningArtificial neural networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modern radio astronomy instruments generate vast amounts of data, and the increasingly challenging radio frequency interference (RFI) environment necessitates ever-more sophisticated RFI rejection algorithms. The ‘needle in a haystack’ nature of searches for transients and technosignatures requires us to develop methods that can determine whether a signal of interest has unique properties, or is a part of some larger set of pernicious RFI. In the past, this vetting has required onerous manual inspection of very large numbers of signals. In this paper, we present a fast and modular deep learning algorithm to search for lookalike signals of interest in radio spectrogram data. First, we trained a β-variational autoencoder on signals returned by an energy detection algorithm. We then adapted a positional embedding layer from classical transformer architecture to a embed additional metadata, which we demonstrate using a frequency-based embedding. Next we used the encoder component of the β-variational autoencoder to extract features from small (∼715 Hz, with a resolution of 2.79 Hz per frequency bin) windows in the radio spectrogram. We used our algorithm to conduct a search for a given query (encoded signal of interest) on a set of signals (encoded features of searched items) to produce the top candidates with similar features. We successfully demonstrate that the algorithm retrieves signals with similar appearance, given only the original radio spectrogram data. This algorithm can be used to improve the efficiency of vetting signals of interest in technosignature searches, but could also be applied to a wider variety of searches for ‘lookalike’ signals in large astronomical data sets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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