Researcher profile

G. Gopalan

G. Gopalan contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 11 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
1works
0followers
2topics
3close 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

1 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Methods for X-ray Binary Classification

X-ray Binaries (XRBs) consist of a compact object that accretes material from an orbiting secondary star. The most secure method we have for determining if the compact object is a black hole is to determine its mass: this is limited to bright objects, and requires substantial time-intensive spectroscopic monitoring. With new X-ray sources being discovered with different X-ray observatories, developing efficient, robust means to classify compact objects becomes increasingly important. We compare three machine learning classification methods (Bayesian Gaussian Processes (BGP), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machines (SVM)) for determining the compact objects as neutron stars or black holes (BHs) in XRB systems. Each machine learning method uses spatial patterns which exist between systems of the same type in 3D Color-Color-Intensity diagrams. We used lightcurves extracted using six years of data with MAXI/GSC for 44 representative sources. We find that all three methods are highly accurate in distinguishing pulsing from non-pulsing neutron stars (NPNS) with 95\% of NPNS and 100\% of pulsars accurately predicted. All three methods have high accuracy distinguishing BHs from pulsars (92\%) but continue to confuse BHs with a subclass of NPNS, called the Bursters, with KNN doing the best at only 50\% accuracy for predicting BHs. The precision of all three methods is high, providing equivalent results over 5-10 independent runs. In a future work, we suggest a fourth dimension be incorporated to mitigate the confusion of BHs with Bursters. This work paves the way towards more robust methods to efficiently distinguish BHs, NPNS, and pulsars.