We gratefully acknowledge support from
the Simons Foundation and member institutions.
Full-text links:

Download:

Current browse context:

astro-ph.GA

Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Bookmark

(what is this?)
CiteULike logo BibSonomy logo Mendeley logo del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo

Astrophysics > Astrophysics of Galaxies

Title: Optimising and comparing source extraction tools using objective segmentation quality criteria

Authors: Caroline Haigh (1), Nushkia Chamba (2,3), Aku Venhola (4,5), Reynier Peletier (4), Lars Doorenbos (1), Matthew Watkins (1), Michael H. F. Wilkinson (1) ((1) Bernoulli Institute for Mathematics, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Groningen, Netherlands, (2) Instituto de Astrofí sica de Canarias, Tenerife, Spain, (3) Departamento de Astrofí sica, Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain, (4) Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, Groningen, Netherlands, (5) Space Physics and Astronomy Research Unit, University of Oulu, Finland)
Abstract: With the growth of the scale, depth, and resolution of astronomical imaging surveys, there is an increased need for highly accurate automated detection and extraction of astronomical sources from images. This also means there is a need for objective quality criteria, and automated methods to optimise parameter settings for these software tools.
We present a comparison of several tools which have been developed to perform this task: namely SExtractor, ProFound, NoiseChisel, and MTObjects. In particular, we focus on evaluating performance in situations which present challenges for detection -- for example, faint and diffuse galaxies; extended structures, such as streams; and objects close to bright sources. Furthermore, we develop an automated method to optimise the parameters for the above tools.
We present four different objective segmentation quality measures, based on precision, recall, and a new measure for the correctly identified area of sources. Bayesian optimisation is used to find optimal parameter settings for each of the four tools on simulated data, for which a ground truth is known. After training, the tools are tested on similar simulated data, to provide a performance baseline. We then qualitatively assess tool performance on real astronomical images from two different surveys.
We determine that when area is disregarded, all four tools are capable of broadly similar levels of detection completeness, while only NoiseChisel and MTObjects are capable of locating the faint outskirts of objects. MTObjects produces the highest scores on all tests on all four quality measures, whilst SExtractor obtains the highest speeds. No tool has sufficient speed and accuracy to be well-suited to large-scale automated segmentation in its current form.
Comments: Accepted in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Second version 16 Nov 2020 with a change in the acknowledgements
Subjects: Astrophysics of Galaxies (astro-ph.GA)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936561
Cite as: arXiv:2009.07586 [astro-ph.GA]
  (or arXiv:2009.07586v2 [astro-ph.GA] for this version)

Submission history

From: Reynier Peletier [view email]
[v1] Wed, 16 Sep 2020 10:20:56 GMT (23504kb,D)
[v2] Mon, 16 Nov 2020 20:00:37 GMT (23482kb,D)

Link back to: arXiv, form interface, contact.