Steve Bryson

Hamed Valizadegan, Miguel J. S. Martinho, Jon M. Jenkins et al.

Most existing exoplanets are discovered using validation techniques rather than being confirmed by complementary observations. These techniques generate a score that is typically the probability of the transit signal being an exoplanet (y(x)=exoplanet) given some information related to that signal (represented by x). Except for the validation technique in Rowe et al. (2014) that uses multiplicity information to generate these probability scores, the existing validation techniques ignore the multiplicity boost information. In this work, we introduce a framework with the following premise: given an existing transit signal vetter (classifier), improve its performance using multiplicity information. We apply this framework to several existing classifiers, which include vespa (Morton et al. 2016), Robovetter (Coughlin et al. 2017), AstroNet (Shallue & Vanderburg 2018), ExoNet (Ansdel et al. 2018), GPC and RFC (Armstrong et al. 2020), and ExoMiner (Valizadegan et al. 2022), to support our claim that this framework is able to improve the performance of a given classifier. We then use the proposed multiplicity boost framework for ExoMiner V1.2, which addresses some of the shortcomings of the original ExoMiner classifier (Valizadegan et al. 2022), and validate 69 new exoplanets for systems with multiple KOIs from the Kepler catalog.

Hamed Valizadegan, Miguel Martinho, Laurent S. Wilkens et al.

The kepler and TESS missions have generated over 100,000 potential transit signals that must be processed in order to create a catalog of planet candidates. During the last few years, there has been a growing interest in using machine learning to analyze these data in search of new exoplanets. Different from the existing machine learning works, ExoMiner, the proposed deep learning classifier in this work, mimics how domain experts examine diagnostic tests to vet a transit signal. ExoMiner is a highly accurate, explainable, and robust classifier that 1) allows us to validate 301 new exoplanets from the MAST Kepler Archive and 2) is general enough to be applied across missions such as the on-going TESS mission. We perform an extensive experimental study to verify that ExoMiner is more reliable and accurate than the existing transit signal classifiers in terms of different classification and ranking metrics. For example, for a fixed precision value of 99%, ExoMiner retrieves 93.6% of all exoplanets in the test set (i.e., recall=0.936) while this rate is 76.3% for the best existing classifier. Furthermore, the modular design of ExoMiner favors its explainability. We introduce a simple explainability framework that provides experts with feedback on why ExoMiner classifies a transit signal into a specific class label (e.g., planet candidate or not planet candidate).

Steve Bryson

This essay, written in 1998 by an active participant in both virtual reality development and the virtual reality definition debate, discusses the definition of the phrase "Virtual Reality" (VR). I start with history from a personal perspective, concentrating on the debate between the "Virtual Reality" and "Virtual Environment" labels in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Definitions of VR based on specific technologies are shown to be unsatisfactory. I propose the following definition of VR, based on the striking effects of a good VR system: "Virtual Reality is the use of computer technology to create the effect of an interactive three-dimensional world in which the objects have a sense of spatial presence." The justification for this definition is discussed in detail, and is favorably compared with the dictionary definitions of "virtual" and "reality". The implications of this definition for virtual reality technology are briefly examined.