Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Convolutional neural networks as an alternative to Bayesian retrievals

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

arxiv 2203.01236 v2 pith:CF7PXWTR submitted 2022-03-02 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMcs.LG

Convolutional neural networks as an alternative to Bayesian retrievals

classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMcs.LG
keywords retrievalsnestedsamplinglearningmachinemodelsobservationsspectra
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Exoplanet observations are currently analysed with Bayesian retrieval techniques. Due to the computational load of the models used, a compromise is needed between model complexity and computing time. Analysis of data from future facilities, will need more complex models which will increase the computational load of retrievals, prompting the search for a faster approach for interpreting exoplanet observations. Our goal is to compare machine learning retrievals of exoplanet transmission spectra with nested sampling, and understand if machine learning can be as reliable as Bayesian retrievals for a statistically significant sample of spectra while being orders of magnitude faster. We generate grids of synthetic transmission spectra and their corresponding planetary and atmospheric parameters, one using free chemistry models, and the other using equilibrium chemistry models. Each grid is subsequently rebinned to simulate both HST/WFC3 and JWST/NIRSpec observations, yielding four datasets in total. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are trained with each of the datasets. We perform retrievals on a 1,000 simulated observations for each combination of model type and instrument with nested sampling and machine learning. We also use both methods to perform retrievals on real WFC3 transmission spectra. Finally, we test how robust machine learning and nested sampling are against incorrect assumptions in our models. CNNs reach a lower coefficient of determination between predicted and true values of the parameters. Nested sampling underestimates the uncertainty in ~8% of retrievals, whereas CNNs estimate them correctly. For real WFC3 observations, nested sampling and machine learning agree within $2\sigma$ for ~86% of spectra. When doing retrievals with incorrect assumptions, nested sampling underestimates the uncertainty in ~12% to ~41% of cases, whereas this is always below ~10% for the CNN.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.