Deep inference of simulated strong lenses in ground-based surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The large number of strong lenses discoverable in future astronomical surveys will likely enhance the value of strong gravitational lensing as a cosmic probe of dark energy and dark matter. However, leveraging the increased statistical power of such large samples will require further development of automated lens modeling techniques. We show that deep learning and simulation-based inference (SBI) methods produce informative and reliable estimates of parameter posteriors for strong lensing systems in ground-based surveys. We present the examination and comparison of two approaches to lens parameter estimation for strong galaxy-galaxy lenses — Neural Posterior Estimation (NPE) and Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs). We perform inference on 1-, 5-, and 12-parameter lens models for ground-based imaging data that mimics the Dark Energy Survey (DES). We find that NPE outperforms BNNs, producing posterior distributions that are more accurate, precise, and well-calibrated for most parameters. For the 12-parameter NPE model, the calibration is consistently within <10% of optimal calibration for all parameters, while the BNN is rarely within 20% of optimal calibration for any of the parameters. Similarly, residuals for most of the parameters are smaller (by up to an order of magnitude) with the NPE model than the BNN model. This work takes important steps in the systematic comparison of methods for different levels of model complexity.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".