Test environment running 7.6.6

Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Mass and Age Determination of the LAMOST Data with Different Machine-learning Methods

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Abstract

We present a catalog of 948,216 stars with mass labels and a catalog of 163,105 red clump (RC) stars with mass and age labels simultaneously. The training data set is crossmatched from the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope DR5, and high-resolution asteroseismology data, mass, and age are predicted by the random forest (RF) method or a convex-hull algorithm. The stellar parameters with a high correlation with mass and age are extracted and the test data set shows that the median relative error of the prediction model for the mass of the large sample is 3%, and for the mass and age of RC stars is 4% and 7%. We also compare the predicted age of RC stars with recent works and find that the final uncertainty of the RC sample could reach 18% for age and 9% for mass; meanwhile, the final precision of the mass for the large sample with different types of stars could reach 13% without considering systematics. All of this implies that this method could be widely used in the future. Moreover, we explore the performance of different machine-learning methods for our sample, including Bayesian linear regression and the gradient-boosting decision tree (GBDT), multilayer perceptron, multiple linear regression, RF, and support vector regression methods. Finally, we find that the performance of a nonlinear model is generally better than that of a linear model, and the GBDT and RF methods are relatively better.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Source

Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until