Detecting Anomalous Images in Astronomical Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Environmental and instrumental conditions can cause anomalies in astronomical images, which can potentially bias all kinds of measurements if not excluded. Detection of the anomalous images is usually done by human eyes, which is slow and sometimes not accurate. This is an important issue in weak lensing studies, particularly in the era of large-scale galaxy surveys, in which image qualities are crucial for the success of galaxy shape measurements. In this work we present two automatic methods for detecting anomalous images in astronomical data sets. The anomalous features can be divided into two types: one is associated with the source images, and the other appears on the background. Our first method, called the entropy method, utilizes the randomness of the orientation distribution of the source shapes and the background gradients to quantify the likelihood of an exposure being anomalous. Our second method involves training a neural network (autoencoder) to detect anomalies. We evaluate the effectiveness of the entropy method on the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS) and Dark Energy Camera Legacy Survey (DECaLS DR3) data. In CFHTLenS, with 1171 exposures, the entropy method outperforms human inspection by detecting 12 of the 13 anomalous exposures found during human inspection and uncovering 10 new ones. In DECaLS DR3, with 17112 exposures, the entropy method detects a significant number of anomalous exposures while keeping a low false-positive rate. We find that although the neural network performs relatively well in detecting source anomalies, its current performance is not as good as the entropy method.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".