Normalized to: Geiger, M.
[1]
oai:arXiv.org:1802.03609 [pdf] - 1886374
The Strong Gravitational Lens Finding Challenge
Metcalf, R. Benton;
Meneghetti, M.;
Avestruz, Camille;
Bellagamba, Fabio;
Bom, Clécio R.;
Bertin, Emmanuel;
Cabanac, Rémi;
Courbin, F.;
Davies, Andrew;
Decencière, Etienne;
Flamary, Rémi;
Gavazzi, Raphael;
Geiger, Mario;
Hartley, Philippa;
Huertas-Company, Marc;
Jackson, Neal;
Jullo, Eric;
Kneib, Jean-Paul;
Koopmans, Léon V. E.;
Lanusse, François;
Li, Chun-Liang;
Ma, Quanbin;
Makler, Martin;
Li, Nan;
Lightman, Matthew;
Petrillo, Carlo Enrico;
Serjeant, Stephen;
Schäfer, Christoph;
Sonnenfeld, Alessandro;
Tagore, Amit;
Tortora, Crescenzo;
Tuccillo, Diego;
Valentín, Manuel B.;
Velasco-Forero, Santiago;
Kleijn, Gijs A. Verdoes;
Vernardos, Georgios
Submitted: 2018-02-10, last modified: 2019-03-20
Large scale imaging surveys will increase the number of galaxy-scale strong
lensing candidates by maybe three orders of magnitudes beyond the number known
today. Finding these rare objects will require picking them out of at least
tens of millions of images and deriving scientific results from them will
require quantifying the efficiency and bias of any search method. To achieve
these objectives automated methods must be developed. Because gravitational
lenses are rare objects reducing false positives will be particularly
important. We present a description and results of an open gravitational lens
finding challenge. Participants were asked to classify 100,000 candidate
objects as to whether they were gravitational lenses or not with the goal of
developing better automated methods for finding lenses in large data sets. A
variety of methods were used including visual inspection, arc and ring finders,
support vector machines (SVM) and convolutional neural networks (CNN). We find
that many of the methods will be easily fast enough to analyse the anticipated
data flow. In test data, several methods are able to identify upwards of half
the lenses after applying some thresholds on the lens characteristics such as
lensed image brightness, size or contrast with the lens galaxy without making a
single false-positive identification. This is significantly better than direct
inspection by humans was able to do. (abridged)
[2]
oai:arXiv.org:1705.07132 [pdf] - 1648569
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks as strong gravitational lens
detectors
Submitted: 2017-05-19, last modified: 2017-11-27
Future large-scale surveys with high resolution imaging will provide us with
a few $10^5$ new strong galaxy-scale lenses. These strong lensing systems
however will be contained in large data amounts which are beyond the capacity
of human experts to visually classify in a unbiased way. We present a new
strong gravitational lens finder based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs).
The method was applied to the Strong Lensing challenge organised by the Bologna
Lens Factory. It achieved first and third place respectively on the space-based
data-set and the ground-based data-set. The goal was to find a fully automated
lens finder for ground-based and space-based surveys which minimizes human
inspect. We compare the results of our CNN architecture and three new
variations ("invariant" "views" and "residual") on the simulated data of the
challenge. Each method has been trained separately 5 times on 17 000 simulated
images, cross-validated using 3 000 images and then applied to a 100 000 image
test set. We used two different metrics for evaluation, the area under the
receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) score and the recall with no
false positive ($\mathrm{Recall}_{\mathrm{0FP}}$). For ground based data our
best method achieved an AUC score of $0.977$ and a
$\mathrm{Recall}_{\mathrm{0FP}}$ of $0.50$. For space-based data our best
method achieved an AUC score of $0.940$ and a $\mathrm{Recall}_{\mathrm{0FP}}$
of $0.32$. On space-based data adding dihedral invariance to the CNN
architecture diminished the overall score but achieved a higher no
contamination recall. We found that using committees of 5 CNNs produce the best
recall at zero contamination and consistenly score better AUC than a single
CNN. We found that for every variation of our CNN lensfinder, we achieve AUC
scores close to $1$ within $6\%$.