Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Automated Lensing Learner: Automated Strong Lensing Identification with a Computer Vision Technique

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 1704.02322 v2 pith:IV5LKATA submitted 2017-04-07 astro-ph.IM

classification astro-ph.IM
keywords lensimageslensinglsstmodelperformancestrongdata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Forthcoming surveys such as the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and Euclid necessitate automatic and efficient identification methods of strong lensing systems. We present a strong lensing identification approach that utilizes a feature extraction method from computer vision, the Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG), to capture edge patterns of arcs. We train a supervised classifier model on the HOG of mock strong galaxy-galaxy lens images similar to observations from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and LSST. We assess model performance with the area under the curve (AUC) of a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. Models trained on 10,000 lens and non-lens containing images images exhibit an AUC of 0.975 for an HST-like sample, 0.625 for one exposure of LSST, and 0.809 for 10-year mock LSST observations. Performance appears to continually improve with the training set size. Models trained on fewer images perform better in absence of the lens galaxy light. However, with larger training data sets, information from the lens galaxy actually improves model performance, indicating that HOG captures much of the morphological complexity of the arc finding problem. We test our classifier on data from the Sloan Lens ACS Survey and find that small scale image features reduces the efficiency of our trained model. However, these preliminary tests indicate that some parameterizations of HOG can compensate for differences between observed mock data. One example best-case parameterization results in an AUC of 0.6 in the F814 filter image with other parameterization results equivalent to random performance.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools