4.7 Article

Identification of low surface brightness tidal features in galaxies using convolutional neural networks

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty3232

关键词

methods: data analysis; methods: statistical; galaxies: evolution; galaxies: interactions; galaxies: structure; galaxies: statistics

资金

  1. Science and Technology Funding Council (STFC) [ST/R505006/1]
  2. STFC
  3. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  4. STFC [ST/R000972/1, 1947724, ST/N003179/1, ST/S000488/1, ST/R505006/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Faint tidal features around galaxies record their merger and interaction histories over cosmic time. Due to their low surface brightnesses and complex morphologies, existing automated methods struggle to detect such features and most work to date has heavily relied on visual inspection. This presents a major obstacle to quantitative study of tidal debris features in large statistical samples, and hence the ability to be able to use these features to advance understanding of the galaxy population as a whole. This paper uses convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with dropout and augmentation to identify galaxies in the CFHTLS-Wide Survey that have faint tidal features. Evaluating the performance of the CNNs against previously published expert visual classifications, we find that our method achieves high (76 per cent) completeness and low (20 per cent) contamination, and also performs considerably better than other automated methods recently applied in the literature. We argue that CNNs offer a promising approach to effective automatic identification of low surface brightness tidal debris features in and around galaxies. When applied to forthcoming deep wide-field imaging surveys (e.g. LSST, Euclid), CNNs have the potential to provide a several order-of-magnitude increase in the sample size of morphologically perturbed galaxies and thereby facilitate a much-anticipated revolution in terms of quantitative low surface brightness science.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据