REVIEW 1 cited by
The eROSITA Final Equatorial-Depth Survey (eFEDS): A Machine Learning Approach to Infer Galaxy Cluster Masses from eROSITA X-ray Images
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
We develop a neural network based pipeline to estimate masses of galaxy clusters with a known redshift directly from photon information in X-rays. Our neural networks are trained using supervised learning on simulations of eROSITA observations, focusing in this paper on the Final Equatorial Depth Survey (eFEDS). We use convolutional neural networks which are modified to include additional information of the cluster, in particular its redshift. In contrast to existing work, we utilize simulations including background and point sources to develop a tool which is usable directly on observational eROSITA data for an extended mass range from group size halos to massive clusters with masses in between $10^{13}M_\odot<M<10^{15}M_\odot.$ Using this method, we are able to provide for the first time neural network mass estimation for the observed eFEDS cluster sample from Spectrum-Roentgen-Gamma/eROSITA observations and we find consistent performance with weak lensing calibrated masses. In this measurement, we do not use weak lensing information and we only use previous cluster mass information which was used to calibrate the cluster properties in the simulations. When compared to simulated data, we observe a reduced scatter with respect to luminosity and count-rate based scaling relations. We comment on the application for other upcoming eROSITA All-Sky Survey observations.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Galaxy cluster characterization with machine learning techniques
On mock Chandra images of IllustrisTNG clusters, a ResNet predicts central cooling time (1.8% error) and concentration (0.83 balanced accuracy) well, but cuspiness fails on the test set (96.6% error).
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.