Cited by 50Dark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations

Deep Learning the Morphology of Dark Matter Substructure

Open access
Alexander, Stephon, Gleyzer, Sergei, McDonough, Evan, Toomey, Michael W., Usai, Emanuele·2020·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

Strong gravitational lensing is a promising probe of the substructure of dark matter halos. Deep-learning methods have the potential to accurately identify images containing substructure, and differentiate weakly interacting massive particle dark matter from other well motivated models, including vortex substructure of dark matter condensates and superfluids. This is crucial in future efforts to identify the true nature of dark matter. We implement, for the first time, a classification approach to identifying dark matter based on simulated strong lensing images with different substructure. Utilizing convolutional neural networks trained on sets of simulated images, we demonstrate the feasibility of deep neural networks to reliably distinguish among different types of dark matter substructure. With thousands of strong lensing images anticipated with the coming launch of Vera C. Rubin Observatory, we expect that supervised and unsupervised deep-learning models will play a crucial role in determining the nature of dark matter.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7925

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Alexander et al. (2020) showed they can reach AUC scores above 90% for images with no substructure, spherical subhalos, and vortices on idealised simulations.

    “They show they can reach AUC scores above 90%, for images with no substructure, spherical subhalos, and vortices on idealised simulations.”

    From The Dawes Review 10: The impact of deep learning for the analysis of galaxy surveys (2023) · cites this paper as Alexander et al. (2020)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alexander, S., Gleyzer, S., McDonough, E., Toomey, M. W., & Usai, E.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
Corresponding author
Toomey, Michael W.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2020-04-08
Volume
893
Issue
1
Pages
15
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2972363764
Cited by
50
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2
FWCI
4.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Keywords
dark matter substructure, strong gravitational lensing, convolutional neural networks, dark matter halos, WIMPs, superfluid dark matter, dark matter identification, Vera C. Rubin Observatory

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