Cited by 24Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsAdvanced Image Processing Techniques

psfgan: a generative adversarial network system for separating quasar point sources and host galaxy light

Open access
Stark, Dominic, Launet, Barthelemy, Schawinski, Kevin, Zhang, Ce, Koss, Michael, Turp, M Dennis, Sartori, Lia F, Zhang, Hantian +2 more·2018·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

The study of unobscured active galactic nuclei (AGN) and quasars depends on the reliable decomposition of the light from the AGN point source and the extended host galaxy light. The problem is typically approached using parametric fitting routines using separate models for the host galaxy and the point spread function (PSF). We present a new approach using a Generative Adversarial Network (gan) trained on galaxy images. We test the method using Sloan Digital Sky Survey r-band images with artificial AGN point sources added that are then removed using the gan and with parametric methods using galfit. When the AGN point source is more than twice as bright as the host galaxy, we find that our method, psfgan, can recover point source and host galaxy magnitudes with smaller systematic error and a lower average scatter (⁠|$49\hbox{ per cent}$|⁠). psfgan is more tolerant to poor knowledge of the PSF than parametric methods. Our tests show that psfgan is robust against a broadening in the PSF width of |$\pm 50\hbox{ per cent}$| if it is trained on multiple PSFs. We demonstrate that while a matched training set does improve performance, we can still subtract point sources using a psfgan trained on non-astronomical images. While initial training is computationally expensive, evaluating psfgan on data is more than 40 times faster than galfit fitting two components. Finally, psfgan is more robust and easy to use than parametric methods as it requires no input parameters.

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/sty764

Cites

5 of 5 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Stark et al. (2018) demonstrate that their approach is more than 40 times faster than standard model fitting approaches.

    “In line with works under the same category, the authors demonstrate that their approach is more than 40 times faster than standard model fitting approaches.”

    From The Dawes Review 10: The impact of deep learning for the analysis of galaxy surveys (2023) · cites this paper as Stark et al. (2018)

    Section 3.1 reports that PSFGAN was about 48.3 times faster than GALFIT in their specific comparison when PSFGAN ran on a GPU. The Discussion qualifies this as inference-phase speed: on the same CPU, PSFGAN was about 3.6 times faster, and training took about eight hours. The unqualified claim overgeneralizes the more-than-40-fold result. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Bahcall J. N., Kirhakos S., Schneider D. P., 1995, ApJ, 450, 486 · DOI
  2. Bahcall J. N., Kirhakos S., Saxe D. H., Schneider D. P., 1997, ApJ, 479, 642 · DOI
  3. Barden M., Häußler B., Peng C. Y., McIntosh D. H., Guo Y., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 449 · DOI
  4. Baron D., Poznanski D., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4530 · DOI
  5. Bennert N., Canalizo G., Jungwiert B., Stockton A., Schweizer F., Peng C. Y., Lacy M., 2008, ApJ, 677, 846 · DOI
  6. Blanton M. R. et al., 2017, AJ, 154, 28 · DOI
  7. Boyce P. J., Disney M. J., Bleaken D. G., 1999, MNRAS, 302, L39 · DOI
  8. Chang Y.-Y., van der Wel A., da Cunha E., Rix H.-W., 2015, ApJS, 219, 8 · DOI
  9. Collinson J. S., Ward M. J., Done C., Landt H., Elvis M., McDowell J. C., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2174 · DOI
  10. Dieleman S., Willett K. W., Dambre J., 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1441 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Gabor J. M. et al., 2009, ApJ, 691, 705 · DOI
  12. Goodfellow I. J., Pouget-Abadie J., Mirza M., Xu B., Warde-Farley D., Ozair S., Courville A., Bengio Y., 2014, NIPS, 2672 (arXiv:1406.2661) · arXiv
  13. Goulding A. D., Alexander D. M., Lehmer B. D., Mullaney J. R., 2010, MNRAS, 406, 597 · DOI
  14. Grogin N. A. et al., 2011, ApJS, 197, 35 · DOI
  15. Hernán-Caballero A., Alonso-Herrero A., Pérez-González P. G., Cava A., Cardiel N., the SHARDS Team 2013, preprint (arXiv:1305.0641) · arXiv
  16. Hooper E. J., Impey C. D., Foltz C. B., 1997, ApJ, 480, L95 · DOI
  17. Isola P., Zhu J.-Y., Zhou T., Efros A. A., 2017, IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, p. 5967
  18. Kim M., Ho L. C., Im M., 2006, ApJ, 642, 702 · DOI
  19. Kim M., Ho L. C., Peng C. Y., Barth A. J., Im M., 2008, ApJS, 179, 283 · DOI
  20. Kingma D. P., Ba J., 2015, 3rd International Conference for Learning Rep- resentations, San Diego
  21. Kirhakos S., Bahcall J. N., Schneider D. P., Kristian J., 1999, ApJ, 520, 67 · DOI
  22. Koekemoer A. M. et al., 2011, ApJS, 197, 36 · DOI
  23. Koss M., Mushotzky R., Veilleux S., Winter L. M., Baumgartner W., Tueller J., Gehrels N., Valencic L., 2011, ApJ, 739, 57 · DOI
  24. Lehnert M. D., van Breugel W. J. M., Heckman T. M., Miley G. K., 1999, ApJS, 124, 11 · DOI
  25. Lintott C. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 166 · DOI
  26. McLeod K. K., Rieke G. H., 1995, ApJ, 454, L77 · DOI
  27. Matsuoka Y., Strauss M. A., Price T. N., III, DiDonato M. S., 2014, ApJ, 780, 162 · DOI
  28. Peng C. Y., Ho L. C., Impey C. D., Rix H.-W., 2002, AJ, 124, 266 · DOI
  29. Peng C. Y., Ho L. C., Impey C. D., Rix H.-W., 2010, AJ, 139, 2097 · DOI
  30. Reed S., Akata Z., Yan X., Logeswaran L., Schiele B., Lee H., 2016, in Balcan M. F., Weinberger K. Q., eds, Proc. The 33rd International Con- ference on Machine Learning, Vol. 48. PMLR, New York, p. 1060
  31. Reines A. E., Volonteri M., 2015, ApJ, 813, 82 · DOI
  32. Robotham A. S. G., Taranu D. S., Tobar R., Moffett A., Driver S. P., 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1513 · DOI
  33. Santini P. et al., 2015, ApJ, 801, 97 · DOI
  34. Schawinski K. et al., 2006, Nature, 442, 888 · DOI
  35. Schawinski K., Treister E., Urry C. M., Cardamone C. N., Simmons B., Yi S. K., 2011, ApJ, 727, L31 · DOI
  36. Shimizu T. T., Mushotzky R. F., Meléndez M., Koss M., Rosario D. J., 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1841 · DOI
  37. Simmons B. D., Urry C. M., 2008, ApJ, 683, 644 · DOI
  38. TeamSimmons B. D., Van Duyne J., Urry C. M., Treister E., Koekemoer A. M., Grogin N. A., 2011, ApJ, 734, 121 · DOI
  39. Sola J., Sevilla J., 1997, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 44, 1464 · DOI
  40. Stetson P. B., 1987, PASP, 99, 191 · DOI
  41. Stoughton C. et al., 2002, AJ, 123, 485 · DOI
  42. Vikram V., Wadadekar Y., Kembhavi A. K., Vijayagovindan G. V., 2010, MNRAS, 409, 1379 · DOI
  43. Yoon I., Weinberg M. D., Katz N., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1625 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stark, D., Launet, B., Schawinski, K., Zhang, C., Koss, M., Turp, M. D., Sartori, L. F., Zhang, H., Chen, Y., & Weigel, A. K.
Affiliations
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Peking University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Stark, Dominic
  • Launet, Barthelemy
  • Schawinski, Kevin
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2018-03-22
Volume
477
Issue
2
Pages
2513-2527
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2789663542
Cited by
24
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA contract NAS5-26555, NNH16CT03C, NAS 526555)
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Princeton University
  • Ohio State University
  • University of Washington
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Case Western Reserve University
  • Drexel University
  • Universität Basel
  • University of Portsmouth
  • New Mexico State University
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (26555, PZ00P2, 154799)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  • Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie
  • U.S. Naval Observatory
  • Fermilab
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory
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 › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image Processing Techniques
Keywords
generative adversarial networks, point spread function, quasars

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