Transferring spectroscopic stellar labels to 217 million
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With Gaia Data Release 3 (DR3), new and improved astrometric, photometric, and spectroscopic measurements for 1.8 billion stars have become available. Alongside this wealth of new data, however, there are challenges in finding efficient and accurate computational methods for their analysis. In this paper, we explore the feasibility of using machine learning regression as a method of extracting basic stellar parameters and line-of-sight extinctions from spectro-photometric data. To this end, we built a stable gradient-boosted random-forest regressor (xgboost), trained on spectroscopic data, capable of producing output parameters with reliable uncertainties from Gaia DR3 data (most notably the low-resolution XP spectra), without ground-based spectroscopic observations. Using Shapley additive explanations, we interpret how the predictions for each star are influenced by each data feature. For the training and testing of the network, we used high-quality parameters obtained from the StarHorse code for a sample of around eight million stars observed by major spectroscopic stellar surveys, complemented by curated samples of hot stars, very metal-poor stars, white dwarfs, and hot sub-dwarfs. The training data cover the whole sky, all Galactic components, and almost the full magnitude range of the Gaia DR3 XP sample of more than 217 million objects that also have reported parallaxes. We have achieved median uncertainties of 0.20 mag in V-band extinction, 0.01 dex in logarithmic effective temperature, 0.20 dex in surface gravity, 0.18 dex in metallicity, and 12% in mass (over the full Gaia DR3 XP sample, with considerable variations in precision as a function of magnitude and stellar type). We succeeded in predicting competitive results based on Gaia DR3 XP spectra compared to classical isochrone or spectral-energy distribution fitting methods we employed in earlier works, especially for parameters AV and Teff, along with the metallicity values. Finally, we showcase some potential applications of this new catalogue, including extinction maps, metallicity trends in the Milky Way, and extended maps of young massive stars, metal-poor stars, and metal-rich stars.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
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".