Astronomaly at scale: searching for anomalies amongst 4 million galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Modern astronomical surveys are producing data sets of unprecedented size and richness, increasing the potential for high-impact scientific discovery. This possibility, coupled with the challenge of exploring a large number of sources, has led to the development of novel machine-learning-based anomaly detection approaches, such as astronomaly. For the first time, we test the scalability of astronomaly by applying it to almost 4 million images of galaxies from the Dark Energy Camera Legacy Survey. We use a trained deep learning algorithm to learn useful representations of the images and pass these to the anomaly detection algorithm isolation forest, coupled with astronomaly’s active learning method, to discover interesting sources. We find that data selection criteria have a significant impact on the trade-off between finding rare sources such as strong lenses and introducing artefacts into the data set. We demonstrate that active learning is required to identify the most interesting sources and reduce artefacts, while anomaly detection methods alone are insufficient. Using astronomaly, we find 1635 anomalies among the top 2000 sources in the data set after applying active learning, including eight strong gravitational lens candidates, 1609 galaxy merger candidates, and 18 previously unidentified sources exhibiting highly unusual morphology. Our results show that by leveraging the human–machine interface, astronomaly is able to rapidly identify sources of scientific interest even in large 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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".