MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414141615 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf2a1

The ATLAS Virtual Research Assistant

2025· article· en· W4414141615 on OpenAlexfundno aff
H. F. Stevance, K. Smith, S. J. Smartt, Stephen Roberts, Nicolas Erasmus, D. R. Young, A. Clocchiatti

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilQueen's UniversityNuclear Safety and Security CommissionSpace Telescope Science InstituteNational Research FoundationQueen's University BelfastNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsAtlas (anatomy)WorkloadSkyMetric (unit)Training setDecision treeFacility management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present the Virtual Research Assistant (VRA) of the ATLAS sky survey, which performs preliminary eyeballing on our clean transient data stream. The VRA uses histogram-based gradient-boosted decision tree classifiers trained on real data to score incoming alerts on two axes: “Real” and “Galactic.” The alerts are then ranked using a geometric distance such that the most “real” and “extragalactic” receive high scores; the scores are updated when new lightcurve data is obtained on subsequent visits. To assess the quality of the training we use the recall at rank K, which is more informative to our science goal than general metrics (e.g., accuracy, F1-scores). We also establish benchmarks for our metric based on the pre-VRA eyeballing strategy, to ensure our models provide notable improvements before being added to the ATLAS pipeline. Then, policies are defined on the ranked list to select the most promising alerts for humans to eyeball and to automatically remove bogus alerts. In production the VRA method has resulted in a reduction in eyeballing workload by 85% with a loss of follow-up opportunity <0.08%. It also allows us to automatically trigger follow-up observations with the Lesedi telescope, paving the way toward automated methods that will be required in the era of LSST. Finally, this is a demonstration that feature-based methods remain extremely relevant in our field, being trainable on only a few thousand samples and highly interpretable; they also offer a direct way to inject expertise into models through feature engineering.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: Software
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1010.069

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies→French-language works237,207→