
New planets confirmed in machine learning first - dnetesn
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-planets-machine.html
======
antognini
To be clear, there have been prior studies which have discovered exoplanets
with machine learning. One example (cited in this paper) was from Chris
Shallue at Google and Andrew Vanderberg at CfA, who discovered the first eight
planet system in 2017 by training convolutional neural networks on light curve
data. [1]

The authors explain their contribution to be:

> To date these [previous studies] have all focused on identifying [false
> positives] or ranking candidates within a survey. We build on past work by
> focusing on separating true planets from [false positives], rather than just
> planetary candidates, and in doing so probabilistically to allow planet
> validation.

To translate, these previous studies focused on identifying exoplanet
_candidates_. In the early days of exoplanet research, these candidates were
then followed up with more detailed observations to confirm that the candidate
was a true planet.

With the advent of Kepler, there are now way too many candidates to get
follow-up observations on all of them. So now exoplanets are "validated" by
calculating the probability of a false positive. I am not in this field, but
it seems that the most common algorithm to do this is called VESPA [2]. The
contribution these authors make is to use a machine learning system for the
_validation_ process, i.e., calculating the probability that the candidate is
a false positive.

[1]: [https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05044](https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05044)

[2]:
[https://github.com/timothydmorton/VESPA](https://github.com/timothydmorton/VESPA)

~~~
perl4ever
>there are now way too many candidates to get follow-up observations on all of
them. So now exoplanets are "validated" by calculating the probability of a
false positive

I don't math good, but this sounds like a "dial that goes to 11".

If you have a model to identify false positives, why not incorporate it into
the original model to eliminate those positives? Or, if you really need
observations, how can tweaking the model eliminate that?

~~~
antognini
It's not my field so I don't completely understand it, but I think it helps to
have one method to propose candidates, and an independent technique to
validate candidates. (Though I would welcome correction from someone who works
on exoplanets.)

------
cp_mlreef
That is nice to see that ML can be used for expanding our knowlede of space!

------
throwawaynothx
what was the data provided? if 50 were confirmed how many were false

------
arkanciscan
*exoplanets

~~~
dylan604
I was hoping for Planet 9, 10 & 11.

~~~
garmaine
Ceres, Pluto, and Eris?

~~~
perl4ever
I'm convinced that the reason for all the Chaos these days is because Eris was
snubbed. The rules for what a planet is were changed purely to keep her out of
the club. It seems even more egregious than the snub that led to the Trojan
War.

