Photometric Completeness Modelled with Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In almost any study involving optical/near-infrared photometry, understanding the completeness of detection and recovery is an essential part of the work. The recovery fraction is, in general, a function of several variables including magnitude, color, background sky noise, and crowding. We explore how completeness can be modeled, with the use of artificial-star tests, in a way that includes all of these parameters simultaneously within a neural network (NN) framework. The method is able to manage common issues including asymmetric completeness functions and the bilinear dependence of the detection limit on color index. We test the method with two sample Hubble Space Telescope data sets: the first involves photometry of the star cluster population around the giant Perseus galaxy NGC 1275, and the second involves the halo-star population in the nearby elliptical galaxy NGC 3377. The NN-based method achieves a classification accuracy of > 94% and produces results entirely consistent with more traditional techniques for determining completeness. Additional advantages of the method are that none of the issues arising from the binning of the data are present and that a recovery probability can be assigned to every individual star in real photometry. Our data, models, and code (called COINTOSS) can be found online on Zenodo at the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8306488 .
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".