MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406104077 · doi:10.3390/universe11010013

More Efficient and Reliable: Identifying RRab Stars with Blazhko Effect by Deep Convolutional Neural Network

2025· article· en· W4406104077 on OpenAlexaff
Nan Jiang, Tianrui Sun, Siyuan Pan, Lingzhi Wang, Xue Li, Bin Sheng, Xiaofeng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueUniverse · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaChinese Academy of Sciences South America Center for AstronomyTencentChinese Academy of SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLight curveConvolutional neural networkPhysicsStarsBulgeModulation (music)Pattern recognition (psychology)AstrophysicsArtificial intelligenceDeep learningAstronomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The physical origin of the Blazhko effect (BL), a phenomenon of a single or multiple periodic modulation(s) of the light curve, is under debate. Efficiently identifying and characterizing the BL is essential in understanding its origins and accounting for its effect on numerous applications of RRabs in the era of large time-domain surveys. In this study, we make use of Resnet 34, a well-known convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture, to identify RRab stars with BL from phased light curves collected from OGLE. Using reliably classified RRabs from frequency analysis to train, validate, and test our model, we show that our CNN method reaches accuracies up to 94%. We then applied our CNN method to some additional RRabs located in the Magellanic Cloud (MC) and the Galactic Bulge (GB), leading to the discovery of 113 and 2496 BL candidates, respectively. The identification accuracy for the MC Sample is estimated to be 91% after cross-matching the CNN classification results with those from frequency analysis. Similarly, the light-curve parameters of these classified BL/non-BL candidates by our CNN method from the GB region resemble those observed in the literature, confirming the reliability of our CNN classifications. Our CNN method is subject to issues related to light-curve quality and sampling, but its overall reliance on light-curve quality is comparable to that of frequency analysis. Furthermore, we find that BL modulation could be primarily characterized by variations in light-curve structure.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniverseSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207