Source author record

Yang-Ping Luo

Yang-Ping Luo appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

1works
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Mass and Age determination of the LAMOST data with different Machine Learning methods

We present a catalog of 948,216 stars with mass label and a catalog of 163,105 red clump (RC) stars with mass and age labels simultaneously. The training dataset is cross matched from the LAMOST (The Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope) DR5 and high resolution asteroseismology data, mass and age are predicted by random forest method or convex hull algorithm. The stellar parameters with high correlation with mass and age are extracted and the test dataset shows that the median relative error of the prediction model for the mass of large sample is 3\% and meanwhile, the mass and age of red clump stars are 4\% and 7\%. We also compare the predicted age of red clump stars with the recent works and find that the final uncertainty of the RC sample could reach 18\% for age and 9\% for mass, in the meantime, final precision of the mass for large sample with different type of stars could reach 13\% without considering systematics, all these are implying 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 (BYS), gradient boosting decision Tree (GBDT), multilayer perceptron (MLP), multiple linear regression (MLR), random forest (RF) and support vector regression (SVR). Finally we find that the performance of nonlinear model is generally better than that of linear model, and the GBDT and RF methods are relatively better.