Paper detail

Stellar mass and radius estimation using Artificial Intelligence

Estimating stellar masses and radii is a challenge for most of the stars but their knowledge is critical for many different astrophysical fields. One of the most extended techniques for estimating these variables are the so-called empirical relations. In this work we propose a group of state-of-the-art AI regression models, with the aim of studying their proficiency in estimating stellar masses and radii. We publicly release the database, the AI models, and an online tool for stellar mass and radius estimation to the community. We use a sample of 726 MS stars in the literature with accurate M, R, T_eff, L, log g, and [Fe/H]. We have split our data sample into training and testing sets and then analyzed the different AI techniques with them. In particular, we have experimentally evaluated the accuracy of the following models: Linear Reg., Bayesian Reg., Regression Trees, Random Forest, Support-Vector Reg. (SVR), Neural Networks, kNN, and Stacking. We propose a series of experiments designed to evaluate the accuracy of the estimations. We have also analyzed the impact of reducing the number of inputs parameters and compared our results with those from state-of-the-art empirical relations in the literature. We have found that a Stacking of several regression models is the most suitable technique for estimating masses and radii. In the case of the mass, Neural Networks also provide precise results, and for the radius, SVR and Neural Networks work too. When comparing with other state-of-the-art empirical relations based models, our Stacking improves the accuracy by a factor of two for both variables. In addition, bias is reduced to one order of magnitude in the case of the stellar mass. Finally, we have found that using our Stacking and only T_eff and L as input features, the accuracies obtained are slightly larger than a 5%, with a bias approx 1.5%.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.