Researcher profile

A. Sonnenfeld

A. Sonnenfeld contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

GAlaxy Light profile convolutional neural NETworks (GaLNets). I. fast and accurate structural parameters for billion galaxy samples

Next generation large sky surveys will observe up to billions of galaxies for which basic structural parameters are needed to study their evolution. This is a challenging task that, for ground-based observations, is complicated by seeing limited point-spread function (PSF). To perform a fast and accurate analysis of galaxy surface brightness, we have developed a family of supervised Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) to derive Sersic profile parameters of galaxies. This work presents the first two Galaxy Light profile convolutional neural Networks (GaLNets) of this family. The first one is trained using galaxy images only (GaLNet-1), and the second is trained with both galaxy images and the local PSF (GaLNet-2). We have compared the results from the GaLNets with structural parameters (total magnitude, effective radius, Sersic index etc.) derived on a set of galaxies from the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS) by 2DPHOT, as a representative of "standard" PSF convolved Sersic fitting tools. The comparison shows that GaLNet-2 can reach an accuracy as high as 2DPHOT, while GaLNet-1 performs worse because it misses the information on the local PSF. Both GaLNets are three orders of magnitude faster than standard methods in terms of computational speed. This first application of CNNs to ground-based galaxy surface photometry shows that they are promising tools to perform parametric analyses of very large galaxy samples, like the ones expected from Vera Rubin/LSST surveys. However, the GaLNets can be easily modified for space observations from Euclid and the China Space Station Telescope.

preprint2020arXiv

TDCOSMO. I. An exploration of systematic uncertainties in the inference of $H_0$ from time-delay cosmography

Time-delay cosmography of lensed quasars has achieved 2.4% precision on the measurement of the Hubble constant, $H_0$. As part of an ongoing effort to uncover and control systematic uncertainties, we investigate three potential sources: 1- stellar kinematics, 2- line-of-sight effects, and 3- the deflector mass model. To meet this goal in a quantitative way, we reproduced the H0LiCOW/SHARP/STRIDES (hereafter TDCOSMO) procedures on a set of real and simulated data, and we find the following. First, stellar kinematics cannot be a dominant source of error or bias since we find that a systematic change of 10% of measured velocity dispersion leads to only a 0.7% shift on $H_0$ from the seven lenses analyzed by TDCOSMO. Second, we find no bias to arise from incorrect estimation of the line-of-sight effects. Third, we show that elliptical composite (stars + dark matter halo), power-law, and cored power-law mass profiles have the flexibility to yield a broad range in $H_0$ values. However, the TDCOSMO procedures that model the data with both composite and power-law mass profiles are informative. If the models agree, as we observe in real systems owing to the "bulge-halo" conspiracy, $H_0$ is recovered precisely and accurately by both models. If the two models disagree, as in the case of some pathological models illustrated here, the TDCOSMO procedure either discriminates between them through the goodness of fit, or it accounts for the discrepancy in the final error bars provided by the analysis. This conclusion is consistent with a reanalysis of six of the TDCOSMO (real) lenses: the composite model yields $74.0^{+1.7}_{-1.8}$ $km.s^{-1}.Mpc^{-1}$, while the power-law model yields $H_0=74.2^{+1.6}_{-1.6}$ $km.s^{-1}.Mpc^{-1}$. In conclusion, we find no evidence of bias or errors larger than the current statistical uncertainties reported by TDCOSMO.