论文标题
卷积神经网络作为贝叶斯检索的替代
Convolutional neural networks as an alternative to Bayesian retrievals
论文作者
论文摘要
目前,使用贝叶斯检索技术分析了外球星观测。由于使用的模型的计算负载,在模型复杂性和计算时间之间需要妥协。对未来设施的数据分析将需要更复杂的模型,这将增加检索的计算负载,从而促使人们寻找更快的方法来解释系外行星观测。我们的目标是将机器的学习检索与嵌套采样进行比较,并了解机器学习是否可以像贝叶斯检索一样可靠,同时更快地订购数量级。我们生成合成传输光谱的网格及其相应的行星和大气参数,一个使用自由化学模型,另一个使用平衡化学模型。随后对每个网格进行重新融资,以模拟HST/WFC3和JWST/NIRSPEC观测值,总共产生四个数据集。每个数据集对卷积神经网络(CNN)进行培训。我们对通过嵌套采样和机器学习的每种组合组合进行了1,000个模拟观察结果进行检索。我们还使用两种方法在实际WFC3传输光谱上进行检索。最后,我们测试了机器学习和嵌套采样的强大假设。 CNN达到了参数的预测值和真实值之间的较低确定系数。嵌套采样低估了约8%的检索中的不确定性,而CNN则正确估计了它们。对于真实的WFC3观测值,嵌套采样和机器学习同意在$2σ$中,占光谱的86%。当用不正确的假设进行检索时,嵌套采样低估了〜12%至〜41%的病例的不确定性,而CNN的不确定性始终低于〜10%。
Exoplanet observations are currently analysed with Bayesian retrieval techniques. Due to the computational load of the models used, a compromise is needed between model complexity and computing time. Analysis of data from future facilities, will need more complex models which will increase the computational load of retrievals, prompting the search for a faster approach for interpreting exoplanet observations. Our goal is to compare machine learning retrievals of exoplanet transmission spectra with nested sampling, and understand if machine learning can be as reliable as Bayesian retrievals for a statistically significant sample of spectra while being orders of magnitude faster. We generate grids of synthetic transmission spectra and their corresponding planetary and atmospheric parameters, one using free chemistry models, and the other using equilibrium chemistry models. Each grid is subsequently rebinned to simulate both HST/WFC3 and JWST/NIRSpec observations, yielding four datasets in total. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are trained with each of the datasets. We perform retrievals on a 1,000 simulated observations for each combination of model type and instrument with nested sampling and machine learning. We also use both methods to perform retrievals on real WFC3 transmission spectra. Finally, we test how robust machine learning and nested sampling are against incorrect assumptions in our models. CNNs reach a lower coefficient of determination between predicted and true values of the parameters. Nested sampling underestimates the uncertainty in ~8% of retrievals, whereas CNNs estimate them correctly. For real WFC3 observations, nested sampling and machine learning agree within $2σ$ for ~86% of spectra. When doing retrievals with incorrect assumptions, nested sampling underestimates the uncertainty in ~12% to ~41% of cases, whereas this is always below ~10% for the CNN.