MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891778777 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.08161

Galaxy shape measurement with convolutional neural networks

2019· preprint· en· W6891778777 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Amplifier Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkGround truthGalaxyDeep learningGaussianSkyWeak gravitational lensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present our results from training and evaluating a convolutional neural network (CNN) to predict galaxy shapes from wide-field survey images of the first data release of the Dark Energy Survey (DES DR1). We use conventional shape measurements as ground truth from an overlapping, deeper survey with less sky coverage, the Canada-France Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS). We demonstrate that CNN predictions from single band DES images reproduce the results of CFHTLenS at bright magnitudes and show higher correlation with CFHTLenS at fainter magnitudes than maximum likelihood model fitting estimates in the DES Y1 im3shape catalogue. Prediction of shape parameters with a CNN is also extremely fast, it takes only 0.2 milliseconds per galaxy, improving more than 4 orders of magnitudes over forward model fitting. The CNN can also accurately predict shapes when using multiple images of the same galaxy, even in different color bands, with no additional computational overhead. The CNN is again more precise for faint objects, and the advantage of the CNN is more pronounced for blue galaxies than red ones when compared to the DES Y1 metacalibration catalogue, which fits a single Gaussian profile using riz band images. We demonstrate that CNN shape predictions within the metacalibration self-calibrating framework yield shear estimates with negligible multiplicative bias, $ m < 10^{-3}$, and no significant PSF leakage. Our proposed setup is applicable to current and next generation weak lensing surveys where higher quality ground truth shapes can be measured in dedicated deep fields.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.094 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Power Amplifier DesignFrench-language works237,207