Robustness of Neural Ratio and Posterior Estimators to Distributional Shifts for Population-level Dark Matter Analysis in Strong Gravitational Lensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigate the robustness of neural ratio estimators (NREs) and sequential neural posterior estimators (SNPEs) to distributional shifts in the context of measuring the abundance of dark matter subhalos using strong gravitational lensing data. While these data-driven inference frameworks can be accurate on test data from the same distribution as the training sets, in real applications, it is expected that simulated training data and true observational data will differ in their distributions. We explore the behavior of a trained NRE and trained SNPEs to estimate the population-level parameters of dark matter subhalos from a large sample of images of strongly lensed galaxies with test data presenting distributional shifts within and beyond the bounds of the training distribution in the nuisance parameters (e.g., the background source morphology). While our results show that NREs and SNPEs perform well when tested perfectly in distribution, they exhibit significant biases that often lead to not recovering the ground truth in the 3 σ interval when confronted with slight deviations from the examples seen in the training distribution. This indicates the necessity for caution when applying NREs and SNPEs to real astrophysical data, where high-dimensional underlying distributions are not perfectly known.
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 | 0.026 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".