Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 60 references

An efficient unsupervised classification model for galaxy morphology: Voting clustering based on coding from ConvNeXt large model

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Cuts galaxy morphology clusters from 100 to 20 using pretrained ConvNeXt coding, with parameter trends matching the standard evolution picture.

desk verdict A clear, useful pipeline improvement for unsupervised galaxy morphology, but the central claim that 20 groups is as good as 100 is not yet benchmarked. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00380 v1 pith:6NBD2ZOT submitted 2024-12-31 astro-ph.GA

Guanwen Fang , Yao Dai , Zesen Lin , Chichun Zhou , Jie Song , Yizhou Gu , Xiaotong Guo , Anqi Mao
show 1 more author
Xu Kong
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxymorphologyunsupervisedmachinelearningConvNeXtbaggingvotingclusteringPCAdimensionalityreductionCOSMOSfieldmorphologicalclassificationconvolutionalautoencoder
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a label-free galaxy morphology pipeline can be made much more efficient by replacing the original feature extraction with coding from a pretrained ConvNeXt large model followed by PCA compression. On 99,806 COSMOS I-band galaxies with $I_{\rm mag}<25$ and $0.2

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery has three stages. A convolutional autoencoder (CAE) denoises and reconstructs each 100×100 image, and an adaptive polar-coordinate transformation (APCT) unfolds the image around its brightest center to enforce rotation invariance. A ConvNeXt large model pretrained on ImageNet-22K encodes the preprocessed image into a 2,048-dimensional vector, which PCA reduces to 1,500 dimensions. The clustering stage uses bagging-based multi-model voting: three algorithms, BIRCH, k-means, and hierarchical agglomerative clustering, each partition the sample into 20 groups, labels are aligned to the k-means output as the fiducial, and a galaxy is kept only when at least two of the three models agree. The consensus requirement is what yields the reliable 53,612 galaxies and what discards controversial samples.

What would settle it

Re-run the same pipeline on the same COSMOS sample with the cluster count set back to 100 and compare the two outputs using a labeled morphology catalog; if the 20-group classes do not separate known ellipticals from known spirals at least as cleanly as the 100-group classes, the central claim that ConvNeXt coding makes 20 groups sufficient would be refuted. A cheaper check is to count how many of the 20 groups, based on random thumbnails, contain a mix of unmistakable spiral and elliptical galaxies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that features extracted by a ConvNeXt large model pretrained on ImageNet-22K, compressed to 1,500 dimensions with PCA, carry enough morphological information that a bagging-based multi-model voting clusterer separates galaxy images into 20 highly similar groups. This is a fivefold reduction compared with the 100-group baseline UML pipeline, and the 20 groups can be assigned to five morphological classes (SPH, ETD, LTD, IRR, UNC) by inspecting only 100 randomly chosen images per group. The paper reports that 53,612 of the 99,806 sample galaxies receive a class, and that on massive ($M_*>10^{10}\,M_\odot$) galaxies the median Sérsic index decreases from 4.4 (SPH) to 0.8 (IRR) while the effective radius increases from 2.1 kpc to 4.4 kpc, with analogous monotonic trends in Gini, $M_{20}$, concentration, $G_2$, and the MID parameters. The authors read these trends as consistent with the existing picture of galaxy evolution and as evidence that the classification is physically meaningful despite having no labeled training set.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that 20 is the right number of machine clusters: the authors chose it by visually comparing runs with 5, 10, and 20 groups rather than by a quantitative comparison against known morphologies, so if 20 groups fuse populations that the old 100-group scheme kept separate, the claimed efficiency improvement would not be a real gain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the same label-free pipeline can classify large surveys more cheaply: 20 groups instead of 100 means far fewer galaxy images need to be inspected by eye to assign final physical categories.
  • The pipeline assigns 53,612 galaxies to five categories without any labeled training data, so it avoids biases from uneven or erroneous human labels.
  • The monotonic parameter trends, such as Sérsic index decreasing and effective radius increasing from SPH to IRR, make the resulting classes usable as input for galaxy evolution studies.
  • Because the method works on single-band I-band images, it can be applied to datasets where only one band is available or where multi-wavelength labels are absent.
  • The authors state that the method will support the survey work of the future Chinese space station telescope.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An ablation separating the contributions of ConvNeXt encoding, PCA compression, and the voting rule is left implicit; such an ablation would show which component actually drives the reduction from 100 to 20 groups.
  • A direct test of the 20-group claim would be to run the same voting pipeline with the original 100-group setting on the same ConvNeXt features; if parameter-space separation is no better at 20 than at 100, the efficiency gain is real but the cluster-count reduction is not the source of it.
  • The t-SNE '80% non-overlap' figure is a visualization rather than a quantitative clustering metric; silhouette scores or mutual information against a labeled sample would provide a stronger, publication-ready validation.
  • The five physical categories could be used as priors or pseudo-labels to train a supervised classifier, extending the method to even larger samples than the 53,612 galaxies classified here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an enhanced unsupervised machine learning (UML) pipeline for galaxy morphology classification. The pipeline preprocesses HST/ACS I-band cutouts from COSMOS with a convolutional autoencoder and adaptive polar-coordinate transformation, encodes the images with an ImageNet-pretrained ConvNeXt large model, compresses the 2048-dimensional features to 1500 dimensions with PCA, and applies a bagging-based voting scheme over three clustering algorithms to assign galaxies to 20 groups, which three experts then visually merge into five classes (SPH, ETD, LTD, IRR, UNC). Applied to 99,806 galaxies with I_mag < 25 and 0.2 < z < 1.2, the method classifies 53,612 galaxies. The authors claim the key improvement over the earlier UML of Zhou et al. (2022) is a reduction from 100 to 20 clustering groups, saving visual-inspection effort, and they validate the classification with t-SNE visualization and morphological parameter trends for massive galaxies.

Significance. If the efficiency claim holds, the method would be a practical advance for large surveys such as CSST, because it demonstrates that a generic pretrained CNN encoder can replace task-specific feature engineering in an unsupervised galaxy-morphology pipeline. The paper's strengths include a reproducible GitHub release, a clear description of the preprocessing and clustering architecture, and consistency of the reported parameter trends with established morphology–physical-property relations. However, the central claim—that 20 groups are as usable as the previous 100 groups—is not yet supported by a quantitative cluster-quality or external-label benchmark, so the significance is conditional on the additional validation proposed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3] The choice of 20 as the 'optimal group number' is based solely on the authors' visual inspection after trying 5, 10, and 20 groups; no quantitative cluster-quality metric, stability analysis, or comparison with external morphology labels is provided. Because the paper's central efficiency claim is that 20 groups suffice where the original UML needed 100, the authors should demonstrate that the 20-group solution preserves the separations that made the 100-group solution usable. I recommend reporting internal indices (e.g., silhouette or Davies–Bouldin) for K = 5, 10, and 20, a bootstrap stability check, and/or agreement with Galaxy Zoo or CANDELS visual classifications on the same objects, plus a head-to-head classification comparison with the Zhou et al. (2022) pipeline on the same sample.
  2. [§4.2] The parameter tests in Section 4.2 (Sérsic index, effective radius, G, M20, C, G2, M, I, D) show monotonic trends from SPH to IRR that are consistent with earlier work, but these trends are expected for any coarse morphology ordering and do not specifically validate the reduction from 100 to 20 groups. The paper provides no significance tests (e.g., KS tests or confidence intervals), no control with random labels, and no comparison of the same parameter distributions from the original 100-group UML on the same sample. Moreover, because the morphology labels and the validation parameters are derived from the same HST images, the parameter trends partly re-express the visual information used in clustering. To support the claim that the enhanced UML is 'at least as usable' as the original, the authors should add such a comparison and report the statistical significance of the between-class differences.
  3. [§4.2] The final paragraph of Section 4.2 states that the enhanced UML 'boasts superior classification behaviour' compared with the original UML, but the only evidence cited is qualitative (Figs. 6 and 8) and an '80% of samples do not overlap' statement based on t-SNE contours. t-SNE is a visualization technique, not a quantitative cluster-validity measure, and contour levels do not directly give the fraction of non-overlapping samples. A quantitative metric (e.g., the fraction of samples whose k-nearest neighbors share the same class, or a labeled evaluation set) is needed before the superiority claim can be accepted.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.3 and §4.1] The number of successfully classified galaxies is reported as 53,216 in Section 3.3 but as 53,612 in Section 4.1 and the abstract; these numbers should be reconciled.
  2. [§1] The phrase 'significantly expands the effective categories of machine classification from 100 classes to 20 classes' should be reworded to 'reduces the number of machine clusters from 100 to 20'.
  3. [Fig. 9 caption] The sentence 'The end of each box represents the 40% upper and lower quartiles respectively' should be corrected to 'the 25% and 75% percentiles'.
  4. [Fig. 9 caption] The phrase 'the Sérsic index effective radius' should read 'the Sérsic index and effective radius'.
  5. [§3.2] The PCA step states that reducing from 2048 to 1500 dimensions 'preserves the most effective information' without reporting the fraction of retained variance; please provide this number.
  6. [§4.1] The claim that '80% of samples do not overlap' after t-SNE is not directly supported by the contour plot in Fig. 8(d); the authors should clarify how the 80% figure was measured.
  7. [§4.2] The UNC class is defined by low signal-to-noise ratio rather than by morphology; including it among the five morphological categories could conflate data quality with morphology, so the authors should clarify how UNC is treated in the parameter tests.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the unsupervised pipeline uses external ImageNet-pretrained ConvNeXt features, and the main validation gaps (20-group choice, same-image parameter tests) are support weaknesses rather than circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper does not derive a prediction from an input that already contains it. The feature vectors come from the ImageNet-22K pretrained ConvNeXt model (Liu et al. 2022), an external parameter set, and the subsequent PCA and bagging-voting clustering are unsupervised. The five final categories (SPH, ETD, LTD, IRR, UNC) are assigned by expert visual inspection of the 20 machine groups, and the morphological-parameter tests in Section 4.2 (Sérsic index, effective radius, G, M20, C, G2, M, I, D) are sanity checks on the resulting labels rather than predictions derived from the model. These tests do reuse the same images that defined the visual categories, so they are not fully independent evidence; a cleaner validation would compare against an external morphological catalog or the original 100-group UML on the same sample. The choice of 20 clusters in Section 3.3 is also justified by qualitative separation after trying 5, 10, and 20, with no quantitative cluster-quality metric, which is a support weakness rather than a circular step. The paper cites prior work by the same group (Zhou et al. 2022; Fang et al. 2023; Dai et al. 2023; Song et al. 2024) for the preprocessing, APCT, and voting methods, but these are used as implemented tools, not as an unverified uniqueness claim, and the new ConvNeXt coding and PCA compression are independent contributions. The footnote claiming discarded galaxies can be reclassified via SML relies on Fang et al. (2023), but this is peripheral to the central classification claim. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the number of clusters, the PCA dimension, and several preprocessing choices, all chosen by the authors through experiments rather than derived from external benchmarks. No new physical entity is postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of clustering groups = 20
    Selected after experimenting with 5, 10, and 20 groups; the choice is post hoc based on visual separation and is the main efficiency claim.
  • PCA target dimensionality = 1500
    Reduced from 2048 to 1500 based on eigenvalues; no explicit variance threshold or independent validation is given.
  • CAE convolution kernel size = 5x5
    Stated to give the best performance; no search grid or quantitative comparison is reported.
  • APCT angular sampling step = 0.05 degrees
    Fixed choice for polar unfolding; no sensitivity test is reported.
  • Voting consensus threshold = at least 2 of 3 algorithms
    Design choice that determines which galaxies are retained; discards about 46% of the input sample.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pretrained ConvNeXt features trained on ImageNet-22K transfer to single-band HST galaxy images without fine-tuning.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 as the feature encoder; no fine-tuning or domain adaptation is described.
  • domain assumption Consensus of at least two clustering algorithms indicates real structure, and non-consensus samples are unreliable.
    Core of the voting step in Section 3.3; no test shows that consensus correlates with true morphology.
  • domain assumption Visual classification of 100 randomly selected images per cluster by three experts is representative and unbiased.
    Used in Section 3.3 to merge 20 clusters into 5 classes; no inter-rater agreement statistic is reported.
  • domain assumption Monotonic trends in structural parameters across classes on massive galaxies validate the classification.
    Used in Section 4.2; assumes no confounding by redshift, stellar mass, or signal-to-noise differences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An efficient unsupervised classification model for galaxy morphology: Voting clustering based on coding from ConvNeXt large model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NBD2ZOT

@misc{pith2026250100380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An efficient unsupervised classification model for galaxy morphology: Voting clustering based on coding from ConvNeXt large model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NBD2ZOT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00380}
}
abstract

In this work, we update the unsupervised machine learning (UML) step by proposing an algorithm based on ConvNeXt large model coding to improve the efficiency of unlabeled galaxy morphology classifications. The method can be summarized into three key aspects as follows: (1) a convolutional autoencoder is used for image denoising and reconstruction and the rotational invariance of the model is improved by polar coordinate extension; (2) utilizing a pre-trained convolutional neural network (CNN) named ConvNeXt for encoding the image data. The features were further compressed via a principal component analysis (PCA) dimensionality reduction; (3) adopting a bagging-based multi-model voting classification algorithm to enhance robustness. We applied this model to I-band images of a galaxy sample with $I_{\rm mag}< 25$ in the COSMOS field. Compared to the original unsupervised method, the number of clustering groups required by the new method is reduced from 100 to 20. Finally, we managed to classify about 53\% galaxies, significantly improving the classification efficiency. To verify the validity of the morphological classification, we selected massive galaxies with $M(*)>10^{10}(M(sun))$ for morphological parameter tests. The corresponding rules between the classification results and the physical properties of galaxies on multiple parameter surfaces are consistent with the existing evolution model. Our method has demonstrated the feasibility of using large model encoding to classify galaxy morphology, which not only improves the efficiency of galaxy morphology classification, but also saves time and manpower. Furthermore, in comparison to the original UML model, the enhanced classification performance is more evident in qualitative analysis and has successfully surpassed a greater number of parameter tests.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histogram of effective radius distribution of galaxies in the se￾lected sample. The effective radius of 97.5% of the samples is less than 50 pixels, it indicates that images with a size of 100 × 100 pix￾els could store the majority of information about galaxies, which means this cutout is suitable for this work. tive morphological classification (Cheng et al. 2021) have also demonstrated the practicality and superio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our framework for enhancing unsupervised classification and schematic diagram for feature extraction. Panel (a) represents the improved model flowchart, while Panel (b) represents the schematic of feature extraction. In the feature extraction process, we use the ConNeXt large model for data encoding to extract compelling features from the data. Subsequently, the next step involves PCA dimensionality reduction to eli… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Some examples of image preprocessing, including six sets of images showing the comparison between preprocessed images of different shapes of galaxies and the original image. The original image is on the left side of each group of images, in the middle is the image afte…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Framework of ConvNeXt model. ConvNeXt adopts a modular design approach similar to Transformer, dividing the network structure into multiple identical modules for easy expansion and maintenance. The network adopts a standardized connection method between each module, wh…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual categorization process diagram. From 20 machine clustering groups, we randomly selected 100 images from each group and placed them on a single canvas. Three experts voted on the classification, ultimately categorizing them into five physically meaningful categor…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Randomly selected examples of the five morphological categories. The images vividly illustrate the pronounced morphological distinctions between each galaxy type. SPH galaxies exhibit a unique spherical form with notably centralized brightness, whereas ETD galaxies fea…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: t-SNE display of the final classification result. We use the t-SNE dimensionality reduction technique to perform two-dimensional mapping on the final classified 5 types of galaxies. Panels (a), (b), and (c) respectively display the dimensionality reduction results of r…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Box plots of Sérsic index (left) and effective radii (right) for different morphological types of massive galaxies. The bar chart represents the values of Sérsic index and effective radii for different galaxy types. It can be seen that from SPHs to IRRs, the galaxy Sér…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of M (left), I (middle), and D (right) for different types of massive galaxies. The bars at the top represent the median values of M, I, and D for different galaxy types. It is evident that from SPHs to IRRs, the I of galaxies gradually increases, and the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Huang, R., & Ananthi, P

    Ajay, P., Nagaraj, B., Kumar, R. A., Huang, R., & Ananthi, P. 2022, Scanning, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    M., Loveday, J., & Brunner, R

    Ball, N. M., Loveday, J., & Brunner, R. J. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 907

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    J., et al

    Banerji, M., Lahav, O., Lintott, C. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 342

    2010

  4. [4]

    Y ., Mcintosh, D

    Barden, M., Haussler, B., Peng, C. Y ., Mcintosh, D. H., & Guo, Y . 2012, MN- RAS, 422, 449

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503

    2008

  6. [6]

    & Charlot, S

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    2003

  7. [7]

    2020, in Proceedings of the 34th Interna- tional Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’20 (Red

    Caron, M., Misra, I., Mairal, J., et al. 2020, in Proceedings of the 34th Interna- tional Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’20 (Red

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    2020, in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’20 (JMLR.org)

    Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M., & Hinton, G. 2020, in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’20 (JMLR.org)

    work page 2020

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al

    Cheng, T.-Y ., Huertas-Company, M., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4446

    2021

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Cheng, T.-Y ., Li, N., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3750

    2020

  3. [11]

    Conselice, C. J. 2003, ApJS, 147, 1

    2003

  4. [12]

    Conselice, C. J. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 291

    2014

  5. [13]

    J., Bershady, M

    Conselice, C. J., Bershady, M. A., & Jangren, A. 2000, ApJ, 529, 886

    2000

  6. [14]

    J., Rajgor, S., & Myers, R

    Conselice, C. J., Rajgor, S., & Myers, R. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 909

    2008

  7. [15]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 34

    Dai, Y ., Xu, J., Song, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 34

    2023

  8. [16]

    W., & Dambre, J

    Dieleman, S., Willett, K. W., & Dambre, J. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1441–1459

    2015

  9. [17]

    2021, in 9th International Con- ference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021 (OpenReview.net)

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., et al. 2021, in 9th International Con- ference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021 (OpenReview.net)

    2021

  10. [18]

    C., & Hospedales, T

    Ericsson, L., Gouk, H., Loy, C. C., & Hospedales, T. M. 2022, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 39, 42

    2022

  11. [19]

    2023, AJ, 165, 35

    Fang, G., Ba, S., Gu, Y ., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 35

    2023

  12. [20]

    E., Izbicki, R., Lee, A

    Freeman, P. E., Izbicki, R., Lee, A. B., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 282

    2013

  13. [21]

    M., Wang, Z., et al

    Ghosh, A., Urry, C. M., Wang, Z., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 112

    2020

  14. [22]

    2018, AJ, 855, 10

    Gu, Y ., Fang, G., Yuan, Q., Cai, Z., & Wang, T. 2018, AJ, 855, 10

    2018

  15. [23]

    Hartigan, J. A. & Wong, M. A. 1979, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 28, 100 Häußler, B., Vika, M., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A92

    1979

  16. [24]

    2016, in 2016 IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 770–778

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. 2016, in 2016 IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 770–778

    2016

  17. [25]

    X., Jian-Hu, Yao-Shen, & Zhou, C.-C

    Hou, Y .-J., Xie, Z. X., Jian-Hu, Yao-Shen, & Zhou, C.-C. 2021, ArXiv, abs/2109.05526

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    2008, ApJ, 690, 1236

    Ilbert, O., Capak, P., Salvato, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 690, 1236

    2008

  19. [27]

    J., et al

    Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 841

    2006

  20. [28]

    S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B

    Kartaltepe, J. S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B. N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L15

    2023

  21. [29]

    M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al

    Koekemoer, A. M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 196

    2007

  22. [30]

    M., Fruchter, A

    Koekemoer, A. M., Fruchter, A. S., Hook, R. N., & Hack, W. 2003, in HST Cali- bration Workshop : Hubble after the Installation of the ACS and the NICMOS Cooling System, 337

    2003

  23. [31]

    Linderman, G. C. & Steinerberger, S. 2019, SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 1, 313

    2019

  24. [32]

    2021, in 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 9992–10002

    Liu, Z., Lin, Y ., Cao, Y ., et al. 2021, in 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 9992–10002

    2021

  25. [33]

    2022, in 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 11966–11976

    Liu, Z., Mao, H., Wu, C.-Y ., et al. 2022, in 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 11966–11976

    2022

  26. [34]

    2023, CoRR, abs/2311.08995 [2311.08995]

    Liu, Z., Zhang, F., Cheng, L., et al. 2023, CoRR, abs/2311.08995 [2311.08995]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M., Davis, M., Faber, S

    Lotz, J. M., Davis, M., Faber, S. M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 177

    2008

  28. [36]

    M., Primack, J., & Madau, P

    Lotz, J. M., Primack, J., & Madau, P. 2004, AJ, 128, 163

    2004

  29. [37]

    2011, in Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning – ICANN 2011, ed

    Masci, J., Meier, U., Cire¸ san, D., & Schmidhuber, J. 2011, in Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning – ICANN 2011, ed. T. Honkela, W. Duch, M. Girolami, & S. Kaski (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 52–59 Ma´ckiewicz, A. & Ratajczak, W. 1993, Computer...

    2011

  30. [38]

    1983, The Computer Journal, 26, 354

    Murtagh, F. 1983, The Computer Journal, 26, 354

    1983

  31. [39]

    & Legendre, P

    Murtagh, F. & Legendre, P. 2014, Journal of Classification, 31, 274–295

    2014

  32. [40]

    J., Boga, B., et al

    Ozbulak, U., Lee, H. J., Boga, B., et al. 2023, CoRR, abs/2305.13689

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    & Chen, P.-Y

    Paul, S. & Chen, P.-Y . 2022, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36, 2071

    2022

  34. [42]

    Y ., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266

    2002

  35. [43]

    2020, Computation O ffloading in Mobile Edge Computing, ed

    Peng, K., Zhang, Y ., Wang, X., et al. 2020, Computation O ffloading in Mobile Edge Computing, ed. X. S. Shen, X. Lin, & K. Zhang (Cham: Springer Inter- national Publishing), 216–220

    2020

  36. [44]

    A., Lotz, J

    Peth, M. A., Lotz, J. M., Freeman, P. E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 963

    2016

  37. [45]

    C., et al

    Ravindranath, S., Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 963

    2006

  38. [46]

    F., Lotz, J

    Rodriguez-Gomez, V ., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 483, 4140–4159

    2018

  39. [47]

    R., de Carvalho, R

    Rosa, R. R., de Carvalho, R. R., Sautter, R. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, L101

    2018

  40. [48]

    2021, IEEE Access, 9, 82146–82168

    Schmarje, L., Santarossa, M., Schroder, S.-M., & Koch, R. 2021, IEEE Access, 9, 82146–82168

    2021

  41. [49]

    2007, ApJS, 172, 1–8

    Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1–8

    2007

  42. [50]

    2024, ApJS, 272, 42

    Song, J., Fang, G., Ba, S., et al. 2024, ApJS, 272, 42

    2024

  43. [51]

    S., et al

    Sreejith, S., Pereverzyev Jr, S., Kelvin, L. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 474, 5232

    2017

  44. [52]

    H., Bernardi, M., et al

    Stoughton, C., Lupton, R. H., Bernardi, M., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 485

    2002

  45. [53]

    P., Conselice, C

    Tohill, C., Bamford, S. P., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2024, AJ, 962, 164 van der Maaten, L. & Hinton, G. 2008, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 2579, pagination: 27 Van Gansbeke, W., Vandenhende, S., Georgoulis, S., Proesmans, M., & Van Gool, L. 2020, in Computer Vision...

    2024

  46. [54]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 1927

    Vega-Ferrero, J., Domínguez Sánchez, H., Bernardi, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1927

    2021

  47. [55]

    R., Kauffmann, O

    Weaver, J. R., Kauffmann, O. B., Ilbert, O., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 11

    2022

  48. [56]

    W., Lintott, C

    Willett, K. W., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 2835

    2013

  49. [57]

    2023, AJ, 954, 113

    Yao, Y ., Song, J., Kong, X., et al. 2023, AJ, 954, 113

    2023

  50. [58]

    1996, in Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD ’96 (New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 103–114

    Zhang, T., Ramakrishnan, R., & Livny, M. 1996, in Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD ’96 (New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 103–114

    1996

  51. [59]

    2022, AJ, 163, 86

    Zhou, C., Gu, Y ., Fang, G., & Lin, Z. 2022, AJ, 163, 86

    2022

  52. [60]

    2019, Astrophysics and Space Science, 364 Article number, page 12 of 12

    Zhu, X.-P., Dai, J.-M., Bian, C.-J., et al. 2019, Astrophysics and Space Science, 364 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.