2021
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stab2087
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Star cluster classification in the PHANGS–HST survey: Comparison between human and machine learning approaches

Abstract: When completed, the PHANGS–HST project will provide a census of roughly 50 000 compact star clusters and associations, as well as human morphological classifications for roughly 20 000 of those objects. These large numbers motivated the development of a more objective and repeatable method to help perform source classifications. In this paper, we consider the results for five PHANGS–HST galaxies (NGC 628, NGC 1433, NGC 1566, NGC 3351, NGC 3627) using classifications from two convolutional neural network archit… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
35
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
2
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To counter confusion from nearby objects, observational surveys that rely on aperture photometry use as small apertures as possible and aim at building their star cluster catalogues with emphasis on single, symmetric and, for example, uniformly colored cluster candidates (Cook et al 2012;Adamo et al 2017). The classification of bona fide clusters can be either computer or human generated, or a combination of both, at varying level of agreement between the two (Whitmore et al 2021). Such objects may be therefore extremely challenging to recover in a reliable manner in the 2D projections of intensely star forming regions and often the central star forming knots and clumpy cluster candidates are left out of the analysis all together (Larsen 2002;Adamo et al 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To counter confusion from nearby objects, observational surveys that rely on aperture photometry use as small apertures as possible and aim at building their star cluster catalogues with emphasis on single, symmetric and, for example, uniformly colored cluster candidates (Cook et al 2012;Adamo et al 2017). The classification of bona fide clusters can be either computer or human generated, or a combination of both, at varying level of agreement between the two (Whitmore et al 2021). Such objects may be therefore extremely challenging to recover in a reliable manner in the 2D projections of intensely star forming regions and often the central star forming knots and clumpy cluster candidates are left out of the analysis all together (Larsen 2002;Adamo et al 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We build training sets of ∼15 hand-selected stars, clusters, and galaxies to help guide the automated cuts. Following Whitmore et al (2021), we identify our training set using a variety of tools, including color images and plotting radial profiles using the imexam python package, where stars all have similar sharp radial profiles but clusters are clearly more extended. Our primary quantitative tool is the Concentration Index (CI), which is the difference in the V-magnitude measured in apertures of 0.5 and 3 pixel radii.…”
Section: Cluster Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They report a TPR of ∼81% and a FDR of ∼19% on a cluster/non-cluster classification task, reaching a TPR of ∼93% and a FDR of ∼7% if testing is restricted to high-mass objects (153 sources). Whitmore et al (2021) report a TPR of ∼82% for a similar cluster/non-cluster classification task for sources from five galaxies of the PHANGS-HST sample using two popular CNN architectures (Resnet18 and VGG19-BN) trained via transfer learning on ∼5500 sources of 10 LEGUS galaxies. When only applying their trained models to isolated objects and for detecting compact and symmetric star clusters, they reach a TPR of ∼92%.…”
Section: Model Performance and Generalisation To New Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the latter case, the catalogues of young star clusters created within the LEGUS or PHANGS projects (e.g. Whitmore et al 2021;Pérez et al 2021) could be used to build a comprehensive sample of GCs and young star clusters for training models. However, when including young star clusters, possibly additional features that encompass the specifics of young star clusters in comparison to mostly spherical GCs need to be included (see e.g Whitmore et al 2011or Deger et al 2022.…”
Section: Model Performance and Generalisation To New Datamentioning
confidence: 99%