Pointing Accuracy Improvements for the South Pole Telescope with Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present improvements to the pointing accuracy of the South Pole Telescope (SPT) using machine learning. The ability of the SPT to point accurately at the sky is limited by its structural imperfections, which are impacted by the extreme weather at the South Pole. Pointing accuracy is particularly important during SPT participation in observing campaigns with the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), which requires stricter accuracy than typical observations with the SPT. We compile a training dataset of historical observations of astronomical sources made with the SPT-3G and EHT receivers on the SPT. We train two XGBoost models to learn a mapping from current weather conditions to two telescope drive control arguments — one which corrects for errors in azimuth and the other for errors in elevation. Our trained models achieve root mean squared errors on withheld test data of 2[Formula: see text]14 in cross-elevation and 3[Formula: see text]57 in elevation, well below our goal of 5[Formula: see text] along each axis. We deploy our models on the telescope control system and perform further in situ test observations during the EHT observing campaign in April 2024. Our models result in significantly improved pointing accuracy: for sources within the range of input variables where the models are best trained, average combined pointing error improved 33%, from 15[Formula: see text]9 to 10[Formula: see text]6. These improvements, while significant, fall shy of our ultimate goal, but they serve as a proof of concept for the development of future models. Planned upgrades to the EHT receiver on the SPT will necessitate even stricter pointing accuracy which will be achievable with our methods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".