E(2) Equivariant Neural Networks for Robust Galaxy Morphology Classification
Reviewed by Pithpith:TNHHOPXMopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
We propose the use of group convolutional neural network architectures (GCNNs) equivariant to the 2D Euclidean group, $E(2)$, for the task of galaxy morphology classification by utilizing symmetries of the data present in galaxy images as an inductive bias in the architecture. We conduct robustness studies by introducing artificial perturbations via Poisson noise insertion and one-pixel adversarial attacks to simulate the effects of limited observational capabilities. We train, validate, and test GCNNs equivariant to discrete subgroups of $E(2)$ - the cyclic and dihedral groups of order $N$ - on the Galaxy10 DECals dataset and find that GCNNs achieve higher classification accuracy and are consistently more robust than their non-equivariant counterparts, with an architecture equivariant to the group $D_{16}$ achieving a $95.52 \pm 0.18\%$ test-set accuracy. We also find that the model loses $<6\%$ accuracy on a $50\%$-noise dataset and all GCNNs are less susceptible to one-pixel perturbations than an identically constructed CNN. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/snehjp2/GCNNMorphology.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Disk-like galaxies at 4 < z < 7.7 : JWST/NIRCam morphologies revealed by denoising VAE-GCNN classification
A denoising VAE-GCNN pipeline applied to JWST/NIRCam images yields a 0.34 fraction of disk-like galaxies at 4 < z < 7.7.
-
Enhancing Galaxy Classification with U-Net Variational Autoencoders. III. Disk-like Galaxy Identification in JWST Samples of up to redshift 4
Extension of an existing deep-learning pipeline to JWST data identifies 382 disk-like galaxies among 1380 massive systems at 0.5 < z < 4, indicating such morphologies persist to high redshift.
-
Interpreting "Interpretability" and Explaining "Explainability" in Machine Learning in Physics
The paper defines interpretability as model structural transparency and explainability as scientific content mapping, discusses their trade-offs, and frames both as deliberate modeling choices for ML in physics.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.