Cited by 133Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsAstronomical Observations and Instrumentation

Finding strong lenses in CFHTLS using convolutional neural networks

Open access
Jacobs, C., Glazebrook, K., Collett, T., More, A., McCarthy, C.·2017·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We train and apply convolutional neural networks, a machine learning technique developed to learn from and classify image data, to Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS) imaging for the identification of potential strong lensing systems. An ensemble of four convolutional neural networks was trained on images of simulated galaxy–galaxy lenses. The training sets consisted of a total of 62 406 simulated lenses and 64 673 non-lens negative examples generated with two different methodologies. An ensemble of trained networks was applied to all of the 171 deg2 of the CFHTLS wide field image data, identifying 18 861 candidates including 63 known and 139 other potential lens candidates. A second search of 1.4 million early-type galaxies selected from the survey catalogue as potential deflectors, identified 2465 candidates including 117 previously known lens candidates, 29 confirmed lenses/high-quality lens candidates, 266 novel probable or potential lenses and 2097 candidates we classify as false positives. For the catalogue-based search we estimate a completeness of 21–28 per cent with respect to detectable lenses and a purity of 15 per cent, with a false-positive rate of 1 in 671 images tested. We predict a human astronomer reviewing candidates produced by the system would identify 20 probable lenses and 100 possible lenses per hour in a sample selected by the robot. Convolutional neural networks are therefore a promising tool for use in the search for lenses in current and forthcoming surveys such as the Dark Energy Survey and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stx1492

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 83 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Collett T. E., et al., 2017, arXiv:1703.08410 [astro-ph] · arXiv
  2. Glorot X., Bengio Y., 2010, in International Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence and Statistics. pp 249-256
  3. Goodfellow I., Pouget-Abadie J., Mirza M., Xu B., Warde-Farley D., Ozair S., Courville A., Bengio Y., 2014, in Ghahramani Z., Welling M., Cortes C., Lawrence N. D., Weinberger K. Q., eds, , Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27.
  4. Hansen L. K., Salamon P., 1990, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 12, 993
  5. Krizhevsky A., Sutskever I., Hinton G. E., 2012, in Pereira F., Burges C. J. C., Bottou L., Weinberger K. Q., eds, , Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems 25.
  6. Lanusse F., Ma Q., Li N., Collett T. E., Li C.-L., Ravanbakhsh S., Mandel- baum R., Poczos B., 2017, preprint, 1703, arXiv:1703.02642 · arXiv
  7. Lecun Y., Bottou L., Bengio Y., Haffner P., 1998, Proc. IEEE, 86, 2278
  8. Nair V., Hinton G. E., 2010, in Proceedings of the 27th International Con- ference on Machine Learning (ICML-10). pp 807-814
  9. Petrillo C. E., et al., 2017, arXiv:1702.07675 [astro-ph] · arXiv
  10. Schawinski K., Zhang C., Zhang H., Fowler L., Santhanam G. K., 2017, arXiv:1702.00403 [astro-ph, stat] · arXiv
  11. Szegedy C., Reed S., Erhan D., Anguelov D., 2014, ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv14121441
  12. Thanjavur K. G., 2009, PhD Thesis. University of Victoria, Canada The DES Collaboration 2005, arXiv:astro-ph/0510346 · arXiv
  13. Zeiler M. D., Fergus R., 2014, in Fleet D., Pajdla T., Schiele B., Tuytelaars T., eds, , Vol. 8689, Computer Vision -ECCV 2014. Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham, pp 818-833

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jacobs, C., Glazebrook, K., Collett, T., More, A., & McCarthy, C.
Affiliations
  • Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
  • University of Portsmouth (GB)
  • Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (JP)
Corresponding author
Jacobs, C.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2017-06-15
Volume
471
Issue
1
Pages
167-181
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2606720601
Cited by
133
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4
FWCI
7.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Astronomical Observations and Instrumentation
Keywords
strong gravitational lensing, lens candidate selection, convolutional neural networks, CFHTLS, Dark Energy Survey, LSST

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review