MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408937401 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451535

Optimal neural summarization for full-field weak lensing cosmological implicit inference

2025· article· en· W4408937401 on OpenAlexaff
Denise Lanzieri, Justine Zeghal, T. Lucas Makinen, A. Boucaud, Jean‐Luc Starck, François Lanusse

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteUniversité de MontréalCentre for Research in Astrophysics of Québec
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeEuropean CommissionUniversité de ParisGrand Équipement National De Calcul IntensifAgence Nationale de la RechercheDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsInferenceWeak gravitational lensingCosmologyField (mathematics)Automatic summarizationGravitational lensing formalismRedshiftArtificial intelligenceGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context. Traditionally, weak lensing cosmological surveys have been analyzed using summary statistics that were either motivated by their analytically tractable likelihoods (e.g., power spectrum) or by their ability to access some higher-order information (e.g., peak counts), but at the cost of requiring a simulation-based inference approach. In both cases, even if the statistics can be very informative, they are not designed nor guaranteed to be statistically sufficient (i.e., to capture all the cosmological information content of the data). With the rise of deep learning, however, it has becomes possible to create summary statistics that are specifically optimized to extract the full cosmological information content of the data. Yet, a fairly wide range of loss functions have been used in practice in the weak lensing literature to train such neural networks, leading to the natural question of whether a given loss should be preferred and whether sufficient statistics can be achieved in theory and in practice under these different choices. Aims. We compare different neural summarization strategies that have been proposed in the literature to identify the loss function that leads to theoretically optimal summary statistics for performing full-field cosmological inference. In doing so, we aim to provide guidelines and insights to the community to help guide future neural network-based cosmological inference analyses. Methods. We designed an experimental setup that allows us to isolate the specific impact of the loss function used to train neural summary statistics on weak lensing data at fixed neural architecture and simulation-based inference pipeline. To achieve this, we developed the sbi_lens JAX package, which implements an automatically differentiable lognormal weak lensing simulator and the tools needed to perform explicit full-field inference with a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) sampler over this model. Using sbi_lens , we simulated a w CDM LSST Year 10 weak lensing analysis scenario in which the full-field posterior obtained by HMC sampling gives us a ground truth that can be compared to different neural summarization strategies. Results. We provide theoretical insight into the different loss functions being used in the literature, including mean squared error (MSE) regression, and show that some do not necessarily lead to sufficient statistics, while those motivated by information theory, in particular variational mutual information maximization (VMIM), can in principle lead to sufficient statistics. Our numerical experiments confirm these insights, and we show on our simulated w CDM scenario that the figure of merit (FoM) of an analysis using neural summary statistics optimized under VMIM achieves 100% of the reference Ω c − σ 8 full-field FoM, while an analysis using summary statistics trained under simple MSE achieves only 81% of the same reference FoM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicImage Processing Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→