Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Dusty stellar sources classification by implementing machine learning methods based on spectroscopic observations in the Magellanic Clouds

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tuned Probabilistic Random Forest, trained on 618 spectroscopically confirmed dusty stars in the Magellanic Clouds, reaches 89% accuracy on 12-band photometry and, applied to 54,306 photometric sources, relabels most red supergiants and…

desk verdict A workmanlike ML classification that ships a useful consensus-labeled catalog, but the headline accuracy rests on label-feature overlap and a single split, and there's a duplicated table that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14332 v1 pith:SJKTKOV6 submitted 2025-04-19 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Sepideh Ghaziasgar , Mahdi Abdollahi , Atefeh Javadi , Jacco van Loon , Iain McDonald , Joana Oliveira , Amirhossein Masoudnezhad , Habib Khosroshahi
show 2 more authors
Bernard Foing Fatemeh Fazel
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords dustystellarsourcesmachinelearningclassificationProbabilisticRandomForestMagellanicCloudsSAGE-Specphotometricasymptoticgiantbranchstarsredsupergiants
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

This paper aims to show that a supervised machine-learning classifier can sort dusty stellar sources in the Magellanic Clouds into five astrophysical classes—young stellar objects, oxygen-rich and carbon-rich AGB stars, red supergiants, and post-AGB stars—using only 12 broadband photometric magnitudes, after training on 618 spectroscopically confirmed sources. The best-performing model, a Probabilistic Random Forest, reaches 89% accuracy on a held-out test set, and SMOTE-based data balancing does not improve the top classes. Applied to 54,306 photometrically labeled sources, a consensus of four models assigns labels to 23,601 objects, and the comparison reveals that photometric labels for red supergiants (8% confirmation) and post-AGB stars (48%) largely disagree with the spectroscopic predictions. If correct, the results provide a fast, purely photometric route to identify dusty evolved stars across the Magellanic Clouds and a caution that existing photometric catalogs may be seriously contaminated for some classes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Probabilistic Random Forest (PRF): a Random Forest variant in which each decision tree outputs a probability distribution over classes rather than a single vote, allowing it to absorb the missing values and measurement noise in the SAGE photometric catalog. The pipeline that carries the argument is a 12-band magnitude feature set (U through Spitzer [24]) corrected for extinction and distance, with missing entries filled by iterative regression imputation; and, in a parallel track, SMOTE synthetic oversampling to balance rare classes such as post-AGB stars. The PRF's per-class probability outputs also enable the consensus scheme: four separately tuned PRF models must agree on a label before it is accepted as the final prediction.

What would settle it

Obtain mid-infrared spectra for a random subset of the 6,132 photometrically labeled red supergiants that the models reassign to oxygen-rich AGB: if the majority show oxygen-rich AGB spectral features (silicate dust with no strong RSG luminosity indicators), photometric RSG catalogs are contaminated as claimed; if a substantial fraction show genuine RSG features, the model's reassignment is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a tuned Probabilistic Random Forest—a tree ensemble whose leaves report probability distributions over classes—classifies SAGE-Spec labeled dusty stars nearly as well as trained spectroscopists, achieving 89% overall accuracy (macro recall 0.90) with 100% recall on carbon-rich AGB and post-AGB classes and 88% on red supergiants. The model generalizes to a separate photometric sample: of 54,306 sources drawn from published photometric catalogs, the consensus of four PRF models labels 23,601 objects, leaving the rest unclassified because the models disagree. The comparison matrix is the substantive result: 100% of photometrically labeled oxygen-rich AGB stars are confirmed, 95% of YSOs, 48% of post-AGB stars, and only 8% of red supergiants, with 91% of photometric RSGs reassigned to the oxygen-rich AGB class. The paper reads this as evidence that photometric labels are unreliable for some classes, and that a spectroscopic-trained model can provide more trustworthy labels at scale.

Load-bearing premise

The SAGE-Spec labels are taken as ground truth, yet those labels were derived from decision trees that used the same photometric colors, SED shape, and luminosity diagnostics that serve as the machine-learning features, so the reported 89% accuracy partly measures reproduction of the labeling procedure rather than purely intrinsic physical differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A purely photometric survey can now sort dusty evolved stars into physical classes with roughly 89% accuracy, bypassing expensive spectroscopy for the bulk of the population.
  • The released catalog of 54,306 sources with model predictions plus photometric labels can be mined for candidate RSG and PAGB stars that need spectroscopic confirmation.
  • Because consensus labeling was applied, objects where four model predictions disagree are flagged as unreliable, providing a clean sample of high-confidence classifications.
  • Existing photometric RSG catalogs in the Magellanic Clouds may be up to roughly 90% contaminated, mostly by oxygen-rich AGB stars, if the spectroscopic labels are accepted.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 8% confirmation of photometric RSGs holds under spectroscopic follow-up, mass-loss and dust-production budgets computed from those catalogs—where RSGs are major contributors—would need to be revised downward.
  • The SAGE-Spec labels were produced by decision trees that used the same colors, SED shapes, and luminosities as the ML features; running the same classifier after removing those features (for example using only mid-IR spectral features as labels) would reveal how much of the 89% accuracy is physical rather than procedural.
  • A testable extension would apply the same PRF pipeline to IRS spectra themselves (or JWST NIRSpec and MIRI spectra) as features, comparing against the photometric-feature model to see whether the RSG/OAGB confusion persists when genuine mid-infrared spectral features enter the classifier.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper trains supervised machine-learning classifiers on 618 SAGE-Spec labeled dusty stellar sources in the LMC and SMC, using 12 broadband photometric magnitudes as features and five target classes (CAGB, OAGB, PAGB, RSG, YSO). After NaN imputation, extinction and distance-modulus corrections, and optional SMOTE augmentation, the authors compare six classifiers and report that a Probabilistic Random Forest achieves 89% accuracy on a single 85/15 split. They also analyze metallicity effects by training on the LMC and SMC separately and combined, concluding that metallicity has no significant impact, and they compare model predictions with photometric catalogs containing 54,306 sources, finding low confirmation rates for RSG (8%) and PAGB (48%). The model predictions are released as a public catalog in the supplementary material.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would demonstrate that classical ML methods can reproduce SAGE-Spec classifications from broadband photometry and would provide a large photometric classification catalog for the Magellanic Clouds. The paper is transparent about small-sample limitations, such as the SMC PAGB recall of 0% in Section 6, and it makes the final catalog available as supplementary material, which are strengths. However, the central quantitative claims are not yet supported: the reported accuracy is vulnerable to label-feature circularity and lacks uncertainty quantification, and the metallicity conclusion appears to rest on a suspicious numerical duplication. With a reframing as a label-reproduction study and the addition of cross-validation, the work could become publishable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 3] The training labels and features are not independent. Section 2 states that the SAGE-Spec spectral classes were derived using a binary decision-tree flowchart incorporating 'redshift, Spitzer infrared spectral features, continuum, spectral energy distribution shape, and bolometric luminosity' (Woods et al. 2011; Ruffle et al. 2015a; Jones et al. 2017b). The features used for classification are the 12 photometric magnitudes U through [24] (Section 3), which after extinction and distance-modulus correction directly determine SED shape and bolometric luminosity. The 89% accuracy reported in Section 5 and Table 4 may therefore largely measure how well the PRF reproduces the photometric cuts in the flowchart, rather than an independent spectroscopic classification. This is load-bearing because Section 7 interprets the model as spectroscopically grounded when it concludes that only 8% of photometric RSGs and 48% of PAGBs are confirmed. The statement in Section 7 that the authors are 'not concerned about the correctness or incorrectness of the labels' does not resolve the problem, since the comparison then reduces to agreement between two photometric labeling schemes. To support the 'spectroscopic' claim, the authors should either retrain on labels assigned from IRS spectral features alone, or demonstrate robustness when photometric selection information is masked, for example by comparing performance on subsets with matched SED shapes.
  2. [Section 3, Section 5, Table 3, Table 6] The headline accuracy is based on a single 85/15 split with no cross-validation, bootstrapping, or confidence intervals. The dataset contains only 618 objects, with 37 PAGBs (4 in the SMC; the paper acknowledges this in Section 6), and the SMC PAGB recall collapses to 0% in Table 6. Table 3 shows that PRF accuracy varies between 85% and 89% across hyperparameter choices, a spread comparable to the differences among the six classifiers in Figure 4. Without error bars, the claims that PRF is 'superior' and that 89% is a stable measure of performance are not supported. The authors should provide k-fold cross-validation or bootstrap resampling to quantify the variance of the accuracy and per-class metrics, especially for PAGB and RSG.
  3. [Section 6, Tables F.1 and F.4] The metallicity analysis rests on an implausible numerical coincidence. The classification report in Table F.4, for a model trained on LMC data and tested on SMC data, is numerically identical in every entry (precision, recall, F1, accuracy, macro averages, weighted averages) to Table F.1, for a model trained and tested on SMC data. This identity is either a copy-paste error or a result requiring detailed explanation, because changing the training set should change at least some predictions given the small SMC test sample. As reported, the conclusion in Section 6 that metallicity 'has no significant impact' is not supported. The authors should rerun the cross-metallicity experiment, report the actual confusion matrix (Figure 6), and replace the duplicate table.
  4. [Section 7, Figure 8] The comparison with photometric catalogs is difficult to interpret as presented. The input photometric catalogs (Table 8) have heterogeneous selection functions (e.g., Whitney et al. 2008 and Gruendl & Chu 2009 are YSO-selected, while Yang et al. 2019 and 2021 use magnitude limits and CMD cuts), yet the analysis treats them as a single photometric-labeled sample. After cross-matching and preprocessing, only 23,601 of 54,306 objects receive consensus labels; the remaining ~31,000 objects are excluded without discussion of how this selection affects the comparison. The low RSG confirmation (8%) and PAGB confirmation (48%) could reflect differences in sample definition rather than intrinsic misclassification. Additionally, because the training labels are themselves partly photometric (see the first major comment), the RSG disagreement may indicate inconsistency between two photometric labeling schemes, not a spectroscopic-versus-photometric discrepancy. The authors should restrict the comparison to objects satisfying the same feature completeness and selection criteria as the training set and report the excluded fraction per catalog.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says 'reaching 89% based on the recall metric', but Section 5 and Table 4 report accuracy (0.89); please rephrase to avoid conflating recall and accuracy.
  2. [Section 5, Figure 5] The text says 'no feature is preferred' but also states that 'the significance of some infrared passbands is greater than others'; these statements should be reconciled, and the figure should be referenced in a way that supports the claim.
  3. [Table 8] The row for Boyer et al. (2011) contains four numbers for five class columns, and the row for Whitney et al. (2008) contains two numbers; the column alignment and the meaning of the 'Total' column need to be fixed.
  4. [Section 3, step 4] The threshold of 'more than six NaNs' is chosen without a stated criterion; please report the number of objects removed at this step and the resulting class distribution.
  5. [Table 2] The column header 'mag' should specify that the values are absolute magnitudes after extinction and distance-modulus corrections; the negative values are otherwise confusing.
  6. [Section 4] The sentence 'Despite constant hyperparameters, different answers are obtained' should state whether a random seed was fixed for the PRF runs, since reproducibility is important for a machine-learning paper.
  7. [Section 6] The statement that SMOTE 'requires at least six samples per class' should be clarified as a consequence of the default n_neighbors=5 parameter in SMOTE; this detail would help readers understand the SMC PAGB limitation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

SAGE-Spec training labels embed photometric SED-shape and luminosity diagnostics identical to the model's 12-band features, so the 89% accuracy and the Section 7 RSG/PAGB comparisons are partially testing the model's ability to reproduce the label flowchart's photometric cuts.

  1. self definitional [Section 2 (label derivation) and Section 3 (features); consequence in Sections 5 and 7]
    "The spectral classes (SpClass) ... were derived using a structured binary decision tree ... such as redshift, Spitzer infrared spectral features, continuum, spectral energy distribution shape, and bolometric luminosity. ... The primary dataset contains 14 features, including UMmag, BMmag, VMmag, IMmag, J2mag, H2mag, Ks2mag, IRAC1, IRAC2, IRAC3, IRAC4, [24], [70], [160]. ... we applied extinction (Schlafly & Finkbeiner 2011) and distance modulus (DM) (Scowcroft et al. 2016; Bhardwaj et al. 2016) to all 12 filters."

    The SAGE-Spec 'spectral classes' used as ground truth are partly defined by the same photometric information used as model features: the classification flowcharts explicitly include 'spectral energy distribution shape, and bolometric luminosity,' and these are direct functions of the 12 U-to-24-um magnitudes (after extinction and distance-modulus corrections) that constitute the feature set. A PRF fitted to these labels is therefore partly relearning the flowchart's photometric SED/luminosity cuts; the 89% held-out accuracy is not a pure measurement of spectroscopic information content.

full rationale

Score 4. The central classification pipeline is standard supervised ML and is not circular in the sense that the model's output labels are defined by its input features; the circularity enters one step earlier, through the training labels. Section 2 states that the SAGE-Spec labels were assigned by a decision tree using SED shape and bolometric luminosity in addition to IRS spectra; Section 3 shows the model features are exactly the 12 photometric bands from which SED shape and luminosity are derived. Thus the headline accuracy, and especially the Section 7 comparison framed as 'spectroscopic method' vs photometric labels, is partially contaminated by label/feature overlap. I found no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem: the cited SAGE-Spec works are detailed observational catalogs, and the Section 7 caveat that the authors 'are not concerned about the correctness or incorrectness of the labels' partially acknowledges the comparison is about label agreement. Because the flowchart also uses real IRS spectral features (silicate/carbon features, continuum), the classification retains independent spectral content, so a 4 rather than 6+ is appropriate.

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

The central claim depends on the quality of the spectroscopic labels and on the transferability of a model trained on a small, targeted, imbalanced sample to a much larger photometric catalog. No new physical entities or free-form model constants are introduced; all adjustable quantities are standard ML hyperparameters and data-cleaning thresholds.

free parameters (4)
  • Train/test split ratio = 85/15
    Chosen by hand (Section 3). No seed is reported, so the split is not reproducible.
  • NaN removal thresholds = Columns with >500 NaNs removed; sources with >6 NaNs removed
    Ad hoc thresholds (Section 3, items 2 and 4) shape the 618-object dataset and influence all reported accuracies.
  • PRF hyperparameters = n_estimators=10; keep_probability in {0.01, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 0.9}
    Selected by grid search (Section 4); best models use keep_probability 0.8 (Simple) and 0.5 (SMOTE), with no error estimates.
  • SMOTE balancing target = 206 (majority YSO class)
    SMOTE oversamples minority classes to the population of the majority class (Section 3.1), affecting the data distribution and class overlap.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SAGE-Spec spectral classes are correct and complete for these objects
    Used as ground truth for training and testing (Section 2); any label errors propagate directly into accuracy estimates.
  • domain assumption The spectral classification labels are independent enough of the photometric features that the model learns intrinsic class differences
    The SAGE-Spec flowcharts (Woods et al. 2011; Ruffle et al. 2015a; Jones et al. 2017b) incorporate SED shape and luminosity, which are derived from the same filters used as features.
  • domain assumption The photometric catalogs from literature (Table 8) are on the same photometric system as the training data
    Relabeling in Section 7 assumes cross-catalog consistency; zero-point offsets would produce spurious disagreements.
  • standard math Standard statistical learning assumptions (i.i.d. samples) hold
    The 85/15 split assumes the test set is representative; the sample is targeted rather than random.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dusty stellar sources classification by implementing machine learning methods based on spectroscopic observations in the Magellanic Clouds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJKTKOV6

@misc{pith2026250414332,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dusty stellar sources classification by implementing machine learning methods based on spectroscopic observations in the Magellanic Clouds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJKTKOV6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14332}
}
abstract

Dusty stellar point sources are a significant stage in stellar evolution and contribute to the metal enrichment of galaxies. These objects can be classified using photometric and spectroscopic observations with color-magnitude diagrams (CMD) and infrared excesses in spectral energy distributions (SED). We employed supervised machine learning spectral classification to categorize dusty stellar sources, including young stellar objects (YSOs) and evolved stars (oxygen- and carbon-rich asymptotic giant branch stars, AGBs), red supergiants (RSGs), and post-AGB (PAGB) stars in the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, based on spectroscopic labeled data from the Surveying the Agents of Galaxy Evolution (SAGE) project, which used 12 multiwavelength filters and 618 stellar objects. Despite missing values and uncertainties in the SAGE spectral datasets, we achieved accurate classifications. To address small and imbalanced spectral catalogs, we used the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) to generate synthetic data points. Among models applied before and after data augmentation, the Probabilistic Random Forest (PRF), a tuned Random Forest (RF), achieved the highest total accuracy, reaching $\mathbf{89\%}$ based on recall in categorizing dusty stellar sources. Using SMOTE does not improve the best model's accuracy for the CAGB, PAGB, and RSG classes; it remains $\mathbf{100\%}$, $\mathbf{100\%}$, and $\mathbf{88\%}$, respectively, but shows variations for OAGB and YSO classes. We also collected photometric labeled data similar to the training dataset, classifying them using the top four PRF models with over $\mathbf{87\%}$ accuracy. Multiwavelength data from several studies were classified using a consensus model integrating four top models to present common labels as final predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14332 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: Locations of dusty sources in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) based on Spitzer/Infrared Spectrograph (IRS) data, including sources from both the SAGE-Spec program and archival observations. Right panel: Locations of dusty sources in the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) selected from IRS staring-mode archival data within the SAGE-SMC footprint. The background images of the Magellanic Clouds were taken from t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dusty stellar sources distribution for the training dataset before and after data augmentation within the Syn￾thetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE). 2017b), whose spatial distribution is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Color-magnitude diagram (CMD) plots the magnitude of stars against their color, representing the locations of each dusty stellar class of object. As shown in this figure, dusty stellar categories are shown along with those generated with the SMOTE method as discussed in Section 3.1, in the near and mid-infrared bands. The left panel shows near-infrared data from 2MASS (J, Ks), and the right panel shows mid-infrared … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This chart compares the performance of a Simple classifier with a SMOTE classifier based on their respective accuracy scores. U mag B mag V mag I mag J mag H mag Ks mag [3.6] [4.5] [5.8] [8.0] [24] Features 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Mean decrease in impurity [PITH…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The feature importance diagram ranks the signifi￾cance of different variables (or features) using the RF model’s Mean Decrease in Impurity (MDI) algorithm A.1. This di￾agram illustrates how important each of the filters in the SAGE catalog is for making accurate stella…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: This figure illustrates the distribution of dusty stellar sources throughout the CMDs in the near and mid-infrared bands. As can be seen, there is an overlap between stellar classes if they are located in the same place; therefore, their classification cannot be easily…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison matrix of common labels derived from four selected classifiers. cation resulted in 23,601 objects, categorized as follows: 4,689 CAGBs, 17,124 OAGBs, 38 PAGBs, 409 RSGs, and 1,341 YSOs. We can now redraw and compare the comparison matrix with the photometric…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Uncertainty-Aware Tidal Disruption Event Classification : A Host-Agnostic Probabilistic Random Forest Approach

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Uncertainty-aware Probabilistic Random Forest on 11 photometric light-curve features classifies TDEs without host data more stably than XGBoost and recovers 14 new candidates from ZTF.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [24]

    2024, Communications of the Byurakan Astrophysical Observatory, 71, 377, 10.52526/25792776-24.71.2-377

    Ghaziasgar , S., Abdollahi , M., Javadi , A., et al. 2024, Communications of the Byurakan Astrophysical Observatory, 71, 377, 10.52526/25792776-24.71.2-377

    work page doi:10.52526/25792776-24.71.2-377 2024

  2. [1]

    ! K g\ T V 2_ GJ!k -k

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  3. [2]

    Hierarchical Classification of Variable Stars Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks

    Abdollahi , M., Torabi , N., Raeisi , S., & Rahvar , S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.08497, 10.48550/arXiv.2301.08497

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.08497 2023

  4. [3]

    J., Simon , J

    Adams , J. J., Simon , J. D., Bolatto , A. D., et al. 2013, , 771, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/112

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/2/112 2013

  5. [4]

    Altman, N. S. 1992, The American Statistician, 46, 175, 10.1080/00031305.1992.10475879

    arXiv 1992

  6. [5]

    B., Teitei, E., & Adda, M

    Bader-El-Den, M. B., Teitei, E., & Adda, M. 2016, 2016 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 3584. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2457143

    2016

  7. [6]

    M., & Brunner , R

    Ball , N. M., & Brunner , R. J. 2010, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 19, 1049, 10.1142/S0218271810017160

    doi:10.1142/s0218271810017160 2010

  8. [7]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.07248, 10.48550/arXiv.1904.07248

    Baron , D. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.07248, 10.48550/arXiv.1904.07248

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.07248 2019

Show all 114 references
  1. [8]

    2017, , 465, 4530, 10.1093/mnras/stw3021

    Baron , D., & Poznanski , D. 2017, , 465, 4530, 10.1093/mnras/stw3021

    2017 doi

  2. [9]

    M., Macri , L

    Bhardwaj , A., Kanbur , S. M., Macri , L. M., et al. 2016, , 151, 88, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/88

    2016 doi

  3. [10]

    D., Mould , J

    Blum , R. D., Mould , J. R., Olsen , K. A., et al. 2006, , 132, 2034, 10.1086/508227

    2006 doi

  4. [11]

    L., McDonald , I., Srinivasan , S., et al

    Boyer , M. L., McDonald , I., Srinivasan , S., et al. 2015, , 810, 116, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/116

    2015 doi

  5. [12]

    L., Srinivasan , S., van Loon , J

    Boyer , M. L., Srinivasan , S., van Loon , J. T., et al. 2011, , 142, 103, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/103

    2011 doi

  6. [13]

    2001, Machine Learning, 45, 5, 10.1023/A:1010933404324

    Breiman , L. 2001, Machine Learning, 45, 5, 10.1023/A:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  7. [14]

    J., & Andonie , R

    Brice , M. J., & Andonie , R. 2019, , 158, 188, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab40d0

    2019 doi

  8. [15]

    Carliles , S., Budav \'a ri , T., Heinis , S., Priebe , C., & Szalay , A. S. 2010, , 712, 511, 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/511

    2010 doi

  9. [16]

    W., & Ostlie, D

    Carroll, B. W., & Ostlie, D. A. 2017, An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press)

    2017

  10. [17]

    V., Bowyer , K

    Chawla , N. V., Bowyer , K. W., Hall , L. O., & Kegelmeyer , W. P. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1106.1813, 10.48550/arXiv.1106.1813

    2011 doi arXiv

  11. [18]

    2024, Open Research Europe, 4, 10.12688/openreseurope.17023.1

    Cody, S., Scher, S., McDonald, I., et al. 2024, Open Research Europe, 4, 10.12688/openreseurope.17023.1

    2024 doi

  12. [19]

    2021, , 647, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038516

    Cornu , D., & Montillaud , J. 2021, , 647, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038516

    2021 doi

  13. [20]

    G., Mahabal , A

    Djorgovski , S. G., Mahabal , A. A., Graham , M. J., Polsterer , K., & Krone-Martins , A. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.01493, 10.48550/arXiv.2212.01493

    2022 doi arXiv

  14. [21]

    Z., Davenport , J

    Dorn-Wallenstein , T. Z., Davenport , J. R. A., Huppenkothen , D., & Levesque , E. M. 2021, , 913, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1f2

    2021 doi

  15. [22]

    G., Hora , J

    Fazio , G. G., Hora , J. L., Allen , L. E., et al. 2004, , 154, 10, 10.1086/422843

    2004 doi

  16. [23]

    2024, Astronomy and Computing, 48, 100851, 10.1016/j.ascom.2024.100851

    Fotopoulou , S. 2024, Astronomy and Computing, 48, 100851, 10.1016/j.ascom.2024.100851

    2024

  17. [25]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.03403, 10.48550/arXiv.2211.03403

    Ghaziasgar , S., Masoudnezhad , A., Javadi , A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.03403, 10.48550/arXiv.2211.03403

    2022 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    R., van Loon , J

    Goldman , S. R., van Loon , J. T., Zijlstra , A. A., et al. 2017, , 465, 403, 10.1093/mnras/stw2708

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Meixner , M., Meade , M

    Gordon , K. D., Meixner , M., Meade , M. R., et al. 2011, , 142, 102, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/102

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, ArXiv, abs/2008.05756

    Grandini, M., Bagli, E., & Visani, G. 2020, ArXiv, abs/2008.05756. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:221112671

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A., & Chu , Y.-H

    Gruendl , R. A., & Chu , Y.-H. 2009, , 184, 172, 10.1088/0067-0049/184/1/172

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    2009, The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction (Springer)

    Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. 2009, The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction (Springer)

    2009

  23. [31]

    2005, , 43, 435, 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

    Herwig , F. 2005, , 43, 435, 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2018, , 26, 1, 10.1007/s00159-017-0106-5

    H \"o fner , S., & Olofsson , H. 2018, , 26, 1, 10.1007/s00159-017-0106-5

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    M., et al

    Hony , S., Kemper , F., Woods , P. M., et al. 2011, , 531, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116845

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, , 493, 6050, 10.1093/mnras/staa642

    Hosenie , Z., Lyon , R., Stappers , B., Mootoovaloo , A., & McBride , V. 2020, , 493, 6050, 10.1093/mnras/staa642

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    R., Roellig , T

    Houck , J. R., Roellig , T. L., van Cleve , J., et al. 2004, , 154, 18, 10.1086/423134

    2004 doi

  28. [36]

    J., VanderPlas , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Connolly , A. J., VanderPlas , J. T., & Gray , A. 2014, Statistics, Data Mining, and Machine Learning in Astronomy: A Practical Python Guide for the Analysis of Survey Data (Princeton University Press), 10.1515/9781400848911

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    Javadi , A., & van Loon , J. T. 2022, in The Origin of Outflows in Evolved Stars, ed. L. Decin , A. Zijlstra , & C. Gielen , Vol. 366, 210--215, 10.1017/S1743921322001326

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    T., Khosroshahi , H., & Mirtorabi , M

    Javadi , A., van Loon , J. T., Khosroshahi , H., & Mirtorabi , M. T. 2013, , 432, 2824, 10.1093/mnras/stt640

    2013 doi

  31. [40]

    2011 b , , 414, 3394, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18638.x

    ---. 2011 b , , 414, 3394, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18638.x

    2011

  32. [41]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1, 10.1038/s41550-023-01945-7

    Jones, O., Nally, C., Habel, N., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1, 10.1038/s41550-023-01945-7

    2023 doi

  33. [42]

    C., Meixner , M., Justtanont , K., & Glasse , A

    Jones , O. C., Meixner , M., Justtanont , K., & Glasse , A. 2017 a , , 841, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6bf6

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    C., Woods , P

    Jones , O. C., Woods , P. M., Kemper , F., et al. 2017 b , , 470, 3250, 10.1093/mnras/stx1101

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    2017 c , VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/MNRAS/470/3250

    ---. 2017 c , VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/MNRAS/470/3250

    2017

  36. [45]

    2020, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 41, 42, 10.1007/s12036-020-09665-4

    Kamath , D. 2020, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 41, 42, 10.1007/s12036-020-09665-4

    2020 doi

  37. [46]

    R., & Van Winckel , H

    Kamath , D., Wood , P. R., & Van Winckel , H. 2014, , 439, 2211, 10.1093/mnras/stt2033

    2014 doi

  38. [47]

    2015, , 454, 1468, 10.1093/mnras/stv1202

    ---. 2015, , 454, 1468, 10.1093/mnras/stv1202

    2015 doi

  39. [48]

    I., & Lattanzio , J

    Karakas , A. I., & Lattanzio , J. C. 2014, , 31, e030, 10.1017/pasa.2014.21

    2014 doi

  40. [49]

    M., Antoniou , V., et al

    Kemper , F., Woods , P. M., Antoniou , V., et al. 2010, , 122, 683, 10.1086/653438

    2010 doi

  41. [50]

    A., Oliveira , J

    Kinson , D. A., Oliveira , J. M., & van Loon , J. T. 2021, , 507, 5106, 10.1093/mnras/stab2386

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    2022, , 517, 140, 10.1093/mnras/stac2692

    ---. 2022, , 517, 140, 10.1093/mnras/stac2692

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    2023, , 953, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace10e

    Kokusho , T., Torii , H., Kaneda , H., Fukui , Y., & Tachihara , K. 2023, , 953, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace10e

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    2016, , 591, A54, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628660

    Kuntzer , T., Tewes , M., & Courbin , F. 2016, , 591, A54, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628660

    2016 doi

  45. [54]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1711.00837, 10.48550/arXiv.1711.00837

    Last , F., Douzas , G., & Bacao , F. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1711.00837, 10.48550/arXiv.1711.00837

    2017 doi arXiv

  46. [55]

    Levesque , E. M. 2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 425, Hot and Cool: Bridging Gaps in Massive Star Evolution, ed. C. Leitherer , P. D. Bennett , P. W. Morris , & J. T. Van Loon , 103, 10.48550/arXiv.0911.4720

    2010 doi arXiv

  47. [56]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.15300, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.15300

    Li , G., Lu , Z., Wang , J., & Wang , Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.15300, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.15300

    2025 doi arXiv

  48. [57]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.10845, 10.48550/arXiv.1906.10845

    Li , X., Wang , Y., Basu , S., Kumbier , K., & Yu , B. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.10845, 10.48550/arXiv.1906.10845

    2019 doi arXiv

  49. [58]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.12791, 10.48550/arXiv.2111.12791

    Liu , Z., Wei , P., Wei , Z., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.12791, 10.48550/arXiv.2111.12791

    2021 doi arXiv

  50. [59]

    K., McLean , I

    Mainzer , A. K., McLean , I. S., Sievers , J. L., & Young , E. T. 2004, , 604, 832, 10.1086/382020

    2004 doi

  51. [60]

    Z., Tramper , F., et al

    Maravelias , G., Bonanos , A. Z., Tramper , F., et al. 2022, , 666, A122, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141397

    2022 doi

  52. [61]

    Massey , P., & Olsen , K. A. G. 2003, , 126, 2867, 10.1086/379558

    2003 doi

  53. [62]

    McDonald , I., & Zijlstra , A. A. 2016, , 823, L38, 10.3847/2041-8205/823/2/L38

    2016 doi

  54. [63]

    A., & Boyer , M

    McDonald , I., Zijlstra , A. A., & Boyer , M. L. 2012, , 427, 343, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21873.x

    2012

  55. [64]

    A., Cox , N

    McDonald , I., Zijlstra , A. A., Cox , N. L. J., et al. 2024, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 3, 89, 10.1093/rasti/rzae005

    2024 doi

  56. [65]

    A., & Watson , R

    McDonald , I., Zijlstra , A. A., & Watson , R. A. 2017, , 471, 770, 10.1093/mnras/stx1433

    2017 doi

  57. [66]

    D., Indebetouw , R., et al

    Meixner , M., Gordon , K. D., Indebetouw , R., et al. 2006, , 132, 2268, 10.1086/508185

    2006 doi

  58. [67]

    2018, , 363, 197, 10.1007/s10509-018-3418-7

    Miettinen , O. 2018, , 363, 197, 10.1007/s10509-018-3418-7

    2018 doi

  59. [68]

    Murthy, S. K. 1998, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2, 345. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:207741345

    1998

  60. [69]

    M., van Loon , J

    Oliveira , J. M., van Loon , J. T., Sloan , G. C., et al. 2013, , 428, 3001, 10.1093/mnras/sts250

    2013 doi

  61. [70]

    N., Sokolovsky , K

    Pashchenko , I. N., Sokolovsky , K. V., & Gavras , P. 2018, , 475, 2326, 10.1093/mnras/stx3222

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  63. [72]

    M., van Loon , J

    Pennock , C. M., van Loon , J. T., Anih , J. O., et al. 2022, , 515, 6046, 10.1093/mnras/stac2096

    2022 doi

  64. [73]

    M., van Loon , J

    Pennock , C. M., van Loon , J. T., Cioni , M.-R. L., et al. 2025, , 537, 1028, 10.1093/mnras/staf080

    2025 doi

  65. [74]

    2013, , 495, 76, 10.1038/nature11878

    Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Graczyk , D., Gieren , W., et al. 2013, , 495, 76, 10.1038/nature11878

    2013 doi

  66. [75]

    L., Riedinger , J

    Pilbratt , G. L., Riedinger , J. R., Passvogel , T., et al. 2010, , 518, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014759

    2010 doi

  67. [76]

    2019, , 157, 16, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf101

    Reis , I., Baron , D., & Shahaf , S. 2019, , 157, 16, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf101

    2019 doi

  68. [77]

    2010, , 723, 1195, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1195

    Riebel , D., Meixner , M., Fraser , O., et al. 2010, , 723, 1195, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1195

    2010 doi

  69. [78]

    2012, , 753, 71, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/71

    Riebel , D., Srinivasan , S., Sargent , B., & Meixner , M. 2012, , 753, 71, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/71

    2012 doi

  70. [79]

    H., Young , E

    Rieke , G. H., Young , E. T., Engelbracht , C. W., et al. 2004, , 154, 25, 10.1086/422717

    2004 doi

  71. [80]

    2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 35, 476

    Rokach, L., & Maimon, O. 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 35, 476. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14808716

    2005

  72. [81]

    Ruffle , P. M. E., Kemper , F., Jones , O. C., et al. 2015 a , , 451, 3504, 10.1093/mnras/stv1106

    2015 doi

  73. [82]

    Ruffle , P. M. E., Kemper , F., Jones , O. C., et al. 2015 b , VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/MNRAS/451/3504

    2015

  74. [83]

    C., & Dopita , M

    Russell , S. C., & Dopita , M. A. 1992, , 384, 508, 10.1086/170893

    1992 doi

  75. [84]

    B., & Lightman , A

    Rybicki , G. B., & Lightman , A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (Wiley-VCH)

    1986

  76. [85]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  77. [86]

    L., Madore , B

    Scowcroft , V., Freedman , W. L., Madore , B. F., et al. 2016, 816, 49, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/49

    2016 doi

  78. [87]

    P., Looney , L

    Seale , J. P., Looney , L. W., Chu , Y.-H., et al. 2009, , 699, 150, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/150

    2009 doi

  79. [88]

    Sen , S., Agarwal , S., Chakraborty , P., & Singh , K. P. 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 1, 10.1007/s10686-021-09827-4

    2022 doi

  80. [89]

    R., Seale , J

    Sewilo , M., Carlson , L. R., Seale , J. P., et al. 2013, , 778, 15, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/15

    2013 doi

  81. [90]

    A., Bolatto , A

    Sheets , H. A., Bolatto , A. D., van Loon , J. T., et al. 2013, , 771, 111, 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/111

    2013 doi

  82. [91]

    J., & Geach , J

    Smith , M. J., & Geach , J. E. 2023, Royal Society Open Science, 10, 221454, 10.1098/rsos.221454

    2023 doi

  83. [92]

    2009, , 137, 4810, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4810

    Srinivasan , S., Meixner , M., Leitherer , C., et al. 2009, , 137, 4810, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4810

    2009 doi

  84. [93]

    2009, , 496, 399, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811029

    Subramanian , S., & Subramaniam , A. 2009, , 496, 399, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811029

    2009 doi

  85. [94]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, Vol

    Subramanian , S., & Subramaniam , A. 2011, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, Vol. 3, Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, 144

    2011

  86. [95]

    2016, Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences, 33, 119, 10.5140/JASS.2016.33.2.119

    Suh , K.-W. 2016, Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences, 33, 119, 10.5140/JASS.2016.33.2.119

    2016 doi

  87. [96]

    2020, , 891, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6609

    ---. 2020, , 891, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6609

    2020 doi

  88. [97]

    2021, , 256, 43, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1274

    ---. 2021, , 256, 43, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1274

    2021 doi

  89. [98]

    Sun, Y., Wong, A. K. C., & Kamel, M. S. 2009, Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell., 23, 687. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27118324

    2009

  90. [99]

    2003, , 41, 391, 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.071601.170018

    van Winckel , H. 2003, , 41, 391, 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.071601.170018

    2003

  91. [100]

    Vapnik, V. N. 1995, The nature of statistical learning theory (Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.)

    1995

  92. [101]

    P., Meixner , M., Babler , B., et al

    Vijh , U. P., Meixner , M., Babler , B., et al. 2009, , 137, 3139, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/3139

    2009 doi

  93. [102]

    2021, Scientific Reports, 11, 24039, 10.1038/s41598-021-03430-5

    Wang , S., Dai , Y., Shen , J., & Xuan , J. 2021, Scientific Reports, 11, 24039, 10.1038/s41598-021-03430-5

    2021 doi

  94. [103]

    W., Roellig , T

    Werner , M. W., Roellig , T. L., Low , F. J., et al. 2004, , 154, 1, 10.1086/422992

    2004 doi

  95. [104]

    A., Feast , M

    Whitelock , P. A., Feast , M. W., van Loon , J. T., & Zijlstra , A. A. 2003, , 342, 86, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06514.x

    2003

  96. [105]

    A., Sewilo , M., Indebetouw , R., et al

    Whitney , B. A., Sewilo , M., Indebetouw , R., et al. 2008, , 136, 18, 10.1088/0004-6256/136/1/18

    2008 doi

  97. [106]

    J., Lakeland , B

    Wilson , A. J., Lakeland , B. S., Wilson , T. J., & Naylor , T. 2023, , 521, 354, 10.1093/mnras/stad301

    2023 doi

  98. [107]

    R., Bessell , M

    Wood , P. R., Bessell , M. S., & Fox , M. W. 1983, , 272, 99, 10.1086/161265

    1983 doi

  99. [108]

    R., Whiteoak , J

    Wood , P. R., Whiteoak , J. B., Hughes , S. M. G., et al. 1992, , 397, 552, 10.1086/171812

    1992 doi

  100. [109]

    M., Oliveira , J

    Woods , P. M., Oliveira , J. M., Kemper , F., et al. 2011, , 411, 1597, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17794.x

    2011

  101. [110]

    Z., Jiang , B.-W., et al

    Yang , M., Bonanos , A. Z., Jiang , B.-W., et al. 2018, , 616, A175, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832833

    2018 doi

  102. [111]

    2019, , 629, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935916

    ---. 2019, , 629, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935916

    2019 doi

  103. [112]

    2020, , 639, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937168

    ---. 2020, , 639, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937168

    2020 doi

  104. [113]

    Z., Jiang , B., et al

    Yang , M., Bonanos , A. Z., Jiang , B., et al. 2021, , 646, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039475

    2021 doi

  105. [114]

    Z., Hafezianzadeh , F., Zhang , Y., et al

    Zeraatgari , F. Z., Hafezianzadeh , F., Zhang , Y., et al. 2024, , 527, 4677, 10.1093/mnras/stad3436

    2024 doi

  106. [115]

    2023, , 40, e037, 10.1017/pasa.2023.35

    Zhang , J., Zhang , Y., Kang , Z., et al. 2023, , 40, e037, 10.1017/pasa.2023.35

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.