Slashdot Mirror


Astronomers Teach a Machine To Analyze Space Images

New submitter Jim Geach writes: Our team of astronomers and computer scientists has developed a novel unsupervised machine learning algorithm — a combination of Growing Neural Gas and Hierarchical Clustering — to automatically analyze astronomical images. In effect, the algorithm performs the same task as a human 'eyeballing' an image, automatically identifying and labeling the points of interest. We're aiming to deploy the algorithm on the next generation of astronomical surveys such as LSST and Euclid where no human, or even group of humans, could closely inspect every piece of data. The algorithm could also find application in other fields, such as medical imaging and early disease diagnosis. The results are being presented at the UK National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, and the details of the algorithm are described in this paper.

28 comments

  1. And everything is labeled a dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That morphs into an eye.

  2. Not as difficult as it sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most astronomical discoveries are made by looking at a region of the sky for an extended period of time and then combing the pictures for differences. Even a simple diff algorithm is useful in this task.

    1. Re:Not as difficult as it sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll never replace Galaxy Zoo. Human pattern matching is just too good.

    2. Re:Not as difficult as it sounds by jgeach · · Score: 1

      The problem is that GZ relies on a user base that wants to look at the interesting objects - this will look at all the boring stuff too. Plus, data rates of LSST will be 10s TB/night - this will have to be parsed extremely quickly to find transients. Can't envision crowd sourcing doing that.

  3. Waldo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can they teach it to find resemblances to Waldo?

  4. That's great but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is every scientific paper newsworthy?

    1. Re:That's great but... by TFlan91 · · Score: 2

      In this regard, I think so.

      For a computer to look at an image as a whole and not bit-by-bit, the software behind image recognition must be amazing.

      I'm impressed with every one of these stories.

    2. Re:That's great but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CiteSeerX reports 148,696 articles published in 2008 when the index was popular. Are you ready for 400 slashdot stories per day?

    3. Re: That's great but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's impressive, but overall no more so than facial recognition. In fact, facial images are often less structured and have many more sources of noise, occlusion and ambiguity, which make it potentially more difficult if not for the huge training sets of facebook et al.

      But when you get down to it I would say what we're dealing with here are standard image recognition methods combined with some excellent domain-knowledge based heuristics.

  5. I have it too. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1, Funny

    > Growing Neural Gas

    My doctor diagnosed me with this too.

    1. Re:I have it too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the Brain Cloud, eh?

    2. Re:I have it too. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      We all have brain farts occasionally, don't worry about it.

  6. (Humans) teach a machine to analyze (xyz) by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Do you want Skynet? Because this is how you get Skynet.

    1. Re:(Humans) teach a machine to analyze (xyz) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1984 called it would like its dated joke back.

    2. Re:(Humans) teach a machine to analyze (xyz) by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean 2009.

  7. Children need supervision by Geistmaus · · Score: 1

    So this is built on the same principles of the Google image tagging algorithm that decided Blacks were Gorillas. This should prove entertaining even if it fails to be useful.

  8. More difficult than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not as difficult as it sounds

    Yeah, that's what Google said.

    I wonder if this algorithm will find any gorillas.

    1. Re:More difficult than you think by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Gorillas can't fly. And there are no black people on ISS right now.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  9. Automated computer assisted scanning by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    The algorithm could also find application in other fields, such as medical imaging and early disease diagnosis.

    Radiologists already use software that assists in scanning images for potentially interesting features. They aren't a replacement but they apparently do a fairly good job at helping to ensure as little as possible gets overlooked. I did some consulting work in a radiology clinic some years ago and they used this technology there to good effect.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see anatomic pathologists using technology like this somewhere in the future. The logistics of it are much more complicated than for radiology but I think somewhere down the line it will probably happen.

    1. Re:Automated computer assisted scanning by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      So basically a pre-scan filter that leaves all questionable findings to the experts (human) for further review.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  10. Error checking too by sjbe · · Score: 1

    So basically a pre-scan filter that leaves all questionable findings to the experts (human) for further review.

    Yes but it also serves an error checking function. Sometimes humans overlook things quite by accident and it provides as way to help ensure that an unblinking set of eyes looks things over. Sometimes these systems flag things that the doctor's miss. (and vice-versa) Both human and machine are pretty good individually but together the results are even better.

    1. Re:Error checking too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, somebody who isn't a part of the "humans can't do anything right" crowd. You know, the self driving car freaks who just know their precious mythical vehicles can drive better than humans based on laboratory-like conditions with roads pre-scanned and measured, no rain, no snow, etc. On the other hand, human driven cars with computer assistance like extra sensors for objects in one's path, automatic brake application, etc. are actually really nice and work exceptionally well.

      Autopilots and automation have crashed planes, and so have humans. When they fail to compliment each other the results can be catastrophic. Luckily that's been learned from and with proper training for people and design for machines, the ability for machines to be super precise and for humans to make decisions in situations that software can't anticipate improves safety tremendously. Experience has shown that too much automation in aviation is actually a very bad thing. (Nobody trot out drones--the argument is stupid. They either fly in pristine conditions with supervision or they don't, and when they don't they actually have a fairly large crash rate. Over 400 for just the US military since 2009 in fact. It's just not publicized by the regular corporate media. If military piloted planes crashed like that we'd never stop hearing about it, and with good reason.)

      You know, it's almost like this notion you mentioned of letting people do things humans are good at and have machines help by doing what machines are good at, things kind of get better for everyone. But of course that's not as profitable for corporations so we have (likely paid) social media trolls trying to convince everyone that humans are incompetent at everything and should be replaced at every possible opportunity.

  11. See astronomy.net by joelsherrill · · Score: 1

    I believe these folks have been doing this for years. They even have been a participant in Google Summer of Code. They gave a presentation on how they could identify objects from cell phone pictures.

    1. Re:See astronomy.net by jgeach · · Score: 1

      No, this is quite distinct from astrometry.net (assume that's what you mean)

    2. Re:See astronomy.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only they, there are many previous projects using Computer Vision techniques for auto-processing astronomical images. Actually, the very first use of image processing algorithms was the analysis of astronomical images.

      I'm not saying this work is not worth, just that the use of (lamentably new) buzzword "Machine learning" is just as the "XYZ over internet" decades ago.

    3. Re:See astronomy.net by jgeach · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but this is truly unsupervised learning, which has not properly been applied to astro-images before

  12. Automatically identify curious features? by Tablizer · · Score: 1