MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964984633 · doi:10.25916/sut.26245457

Finding strong lenses in CFHTLS using convolutional neural networks

2017· article· en· W6964984633 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkLens (geology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural networkMultispectral imageAstronomerIdentification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We train and apply convolutional neural networks, a machine learning technique developed to learn from and classify image data, to Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS) imaging for the identification of potential strong lensing systems. An ensemble of four convolutional neural networks was trained on images of simulated galaxy-galaxy lenses. The training sets consisted of a total of 62,406 simulated lenses and 64,673 non-lens negative examples generated with two different methodologies. An ensemble of trained networks was applied to all of the 171 square degrees of the CFHTLS wide field image data, identifying 18,861 candidates including 63 known and 139 other potential lens candidates. A second search of 1.4 million early type galaxies selected from the survey catalogue as potential deflectors, identified 2,465 candidates including 117 previously known lens candidates, 29 confirmed lenses/high-quality lens candidates, 266 novel probable or potential lenses and 2097 candidates we classify as false positives. For the catalogue-based search we estimate a completeness of 21-28% with respect to detectable lenses and a purity of 15%, with a false-positive rate of 1 in 671 images tested. We predict a human astronomer reviewing candidates produced by the system would identify 20 probable lenses and 100 possible lenses per hour in a sample selected by the robot. Convolutional neural networks are therefore a promising tool for use in the search for lenses in current and forthcoming surveys such as the Dark Energy Survey and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)Same topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207