Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modeling of strong gravitational lenses is a necessity for further applications in astrophysics and cosmology. With the large number of detections in current and upcoming surveys, such as the Rubin Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST), it is pertinent to investigate automated and fast analysis techniques beyond the traditional and time-consuming Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling methods. Building upon our (simple) convolutional neural network (CNN), we present here another CNN, specifically a residual neural network (ResNet), that predicts the five mass parameters of a singular isothermal ellipsoid (SIE) profile (lens center x and y, ellipticity ex and ey, Einstein radius θE) and the external shear (γext, 1, γext, 2) from ground-based imaging data. In contrast to our previous CNN, this ResNet further predicts the 1σ uncertainty for each parameter. To train our network, we use our improved pipeline to simulate lens images using real images of galaxies from the Hyper Suprime-Cam Survey (HSC) and from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field as lens galaxies and background sources, respectively. We find very good recoveries overall for the SIE parameters, especially for the lens center in comparison to our previous CNN, while significant differences remain in predicting the external shear. From our multiple tests, it appears that most likely the low ground-based image resolution is the limiting factor in predicting the external shear. Given the run time of milli-seconds per system, our network is perfectly suited to quickly predict the next appearing image and time delays of lensed transients. Therefore, we use the network-predicted mass model to estimate these quantities and compare to those values obtained from our simulations. Unfortunately, the achieved precision allows only a first-order estimate of time delays on real lens systems and requires further refinement through follow-up modeling. Nonetheless, our ResNet is able to predict the SIE and shear parameter values in fractions of a second on a single CPU, meaning that we are able to efficiently process the huge amount of galaxy-scale lenses expected in the near future.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.283 | 0.130 |
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".