Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T05:18:02.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fifty Years of Candidate Pulsar Selection - What next?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2018

R. J. Lyon
R. J. Lyon*
Affiliation:
School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK, M13 9PL email: robert.lyon@manchester.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

For fifty years astronomers have been searching for pulsar signals in observational data. Throughout this time the process of choosing detections worthy of investigation, so called ‘candidate selection’, has been effective, yielding thousands of pulsar discoveries. Yet in recent years technological advances have permitted the proliferation of pulsar-like candidates, straining our candidate selection capabilities, and ultimately reducing selection accuracy. To overcome such problems, we now apply ‘intelligent’ machine learning tools. Whilst these have achieved success, candidate volumes continue to increase, and our methods have to evolve to keep pace with the change. This talk considers how to meet this challenge as a community.

Keywords

methods: data analysismethods: statisticalpulsars: general
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 13 , Symposium S337: Pulsar Astrophysics the Next Fifty Years , September 2017 , pp. 25 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2018 

References

Bishop, C. M., 2006, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, Springer.Google Scholar
Clifton, T. R. & Lyne, A. G., 1986, Nature, vol. 320, pp. 43–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duin, R. P., 1996, Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 17 (5), pp. 529–536, DOI:10.1016/0167-8655(95)00113-1.Google Scholar
Eatough, R. P., Molkenthin, N., Kramer, M., Noutsos, A., Keith, M. J., Stappers, B. W., & Lyne, A. G., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2443.Google Scholar
Fawcett, T., 2006, Pattern Recognition Letters, vol.27 (8), pp. 861–874, DOI:10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hand, D. J., 2009, Machine Learning, vol.77 (1), pp. 103–123, DOI: 10.1007/s10994-009-5119-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewish, A., Bell, S. J., Pilkington, J. D. H., Scott, P. F., & Collins, R. A., 1968, Nature, vol.217 (5130), pp. 709–713.Google Scholar
Janez, D., 2006, “Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets”, Journal of Machine learning research, vol.7.Google Scholar
Lyon, R. J., Stappers, B. W., Cooper, S., Brooke, J. M., & Knowles, J. D., 2016, MNRAS, vol.459 (1): 1104–1123, DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, R. J., 2016, “Why are Pulsars Hard to Find?”, PhD Thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Lyon, R. J., 2017, “Supporting Material: Fifty Years of Candidate Pulsar Selection - What next?”, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.883844.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E., 1965, “Cramming more components onto integrated circuits”, Electronics, vol.38(8).Google Scholar
Olson, R. S., La Cava, W., Mustahsan, Z., Varik, A., & Moore, J. H., 2017, ArXiv e-prints, q-bio.QM, arXiv:1708.05070.Google Scholar
Salzberg, S. L., 1997, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 1 (3). DOI: 10.1023/A:1009752403260.Google Scholar
van Heerden, E., Karastergiou, A. & Roberts, S. J., 2016, MNRAS, vol. 467 (2), pp. 1661–1677, DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw3068.Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. H., 1996, Neural computation, vol. 8 (7), pp. 1341–1390.Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. H., 2002, “The Supervised Learning No-Free-Lunch Theorems”, In Soft Computing and Industry, pp. 25–42. Springer London.Google Scholar