Cited by 27Generative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaStellar, planetary, and galactic studies

Generative deep fields: arbitrarily sized, random synthetic astronomical images through deep learning

Open access
Smith, Michael J, Geach, James E·2019·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

Generative adversarial networks (GANs) are a class of artificial neural network that can produce realistic, but artificial, images that resemble those in a training set. In typical GAN architectures these images are small, but a variant known as Spatial GANs (SGANs) can generate arbitrarily large images, provided training images exhibit some level of periodicity. Deep extragalactic imaging surveys meet this criteria due to the cosmological tenet of isotropy. Here we train an SGAN to generate images resembling the iconic Hubble Space Telescope eXtreme Deep Field (XDF). We show that the properties of ‘galaxies’ in generated images have a high level of fidelity with galaxies in the real XDF in terms of abundance, morphology, magnitude distributions, and colours. As a demonstration we have generated a 7.6-billion pixel ‘generative deep field’ spanning 1.45 deg. The technique can be generalized to any appropriate imaging training set, offering a new purely data-driven approach for producing realistic mock surveys and synthetic data at scale, in astrophysics and beyond.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stz2886

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Smith & Geach (2019) demonstrated the ability to sample an 87 040 × 87 040 pixel image emulating the HST XDF using a Spatial-GAN.

    “The authors demonstrated the ability to sample a 87 040 × 87 040 pixels image emulating the HST eXtreme Deep Field (XDF).”

    From The Dawes Review 10: The impact of deep learning for the analysis of galaxy surveys (2023) · cites this paper as Smith & Geach (2019)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, M. J., & Geach, J. E.
Affiliations
University of Hertfordshire (GB)
Corresponding author
Geach, James E
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2019-10-21
Volume
490
Issue
4
Pages
4985-4990
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2940729180
Cited by
27
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Queen’s University
  • Royal Society
  • NVIDIA
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Keywords
generative adversarial networks, deep field, mock surveys, synthetic data generation, galaxy morphology, galaxy color, isotropy

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