<i>Euclid</i> preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Euclid will collect an enormous amount of data during the mission’s lifetime, observing billions of galaxies in the extragalactic sky. Along with traditional template-fitting methods, numerous machine learning (ML) algorithms have been presented for computing their photometric redshifts and physical parameters (PPs), requiring significantly less computing effort while producing equivalent performance measures. However, their performance is limited by the quality and amount of input information entering the model (the features), to a level where the recovery of some well-established physical relationships between parameters might not be guaranteed – for example, the star-forming main sequence (SFMS). To forecast the reliability of Euclid photo- z s and PPs calculations, we produced two mock catalogs simulating the photometry with the UNIONS ugriz and Euclid filters. We simulated the Euclid Wide Survey (EWS) and Euclid Deep Fields (EDF), alongside two auxiliary fields. We tested the performance of a template-fitting algorithm ( Phosphoros ) and four ML methods in recovering photo- z s, PPs (stellar masses and star formation rates), and the SFMS on the simulated Euclid fields. To mimic the Euclid processing as closely as possible, the models were trained with Phosphoros -recovered labels and tested on the simulated ground truth. For the EWS, we found that the best results are achieved with a mixed labels approach, training the models with wide survey features and labels from the Phosphoros results on deeper photometry, that is, with the best possible set of labels for a given photometry. This imposes a prior to the input features, helping the models to better discern cases in degenerate regions of feature space, that is, when galaxies have similar magnitudes and colors but different redshifts and PPs, with performance metrics even better than those found with Phosphoros . We found no more than 3% performance degradation using a COSMOS-like reference sample or removing u band data, which will not be available until after data release DR1. The best results are obtained for the EDF, with appropriate recovery of photo- z , PPs, and the SFMS.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.144 | 0.114 |
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".