new

Get trending papers in your email inbox!

Subscribe

Daily Papers

byAK and the research community

Feb 3

Phemenological Modeling of Eclipsing Binary Stars

We review the method NAV (New Algol Variable) first introduced in 2012Ap.....55..536A, which uses the locally-dependent shapes of eclipses in an addition to the trigonometric polynomial of the second order (which typically describes the "out-of-eclipse" part of the light curve with effects of reflection, ellipticity and O'Connell). Eclipsing binary stars are believed to show distinct eclipses only if belonging to the EA type. With a decreasing eclipse width, the statistically optimal value of the trigonometric polynomial s (2003ASPC..292..391A) drastically increases from ~2 for elliptic (EL) variables without eclipses, ~6-8 for EW and up to ~30-50 for some EA with narrow eclipses. In this case of large number of parameters, the smoothing curve becomes very noisy and apparent waves (the Gibbs phenomenon) may be seen. The NAV set of the parameters may be used for classification in the GCVS, VSX and similar catalogs. The maximal number of parameters is m=12, which corresponds to s=5, if correcting both the period and the initial epoch. We have applied the method to few stars, also in a case of multi-color photometry (2015JASS...32..127A), when it is possible to use the phenomenological parameters from the NAV fit to estimate physical parameters using statistical dependencies. We conclude that the NAV approximation is better than the TP one even for the case of EW-type stars with much wider eclipses. It may also be used to determine timings (see 2005ASPC..335...37A for a review of methods) or to determine parameters in the case of variable period, using a complete light curve modeling the phase variations. The method is illustrated on 2MASS J11080447-6143290 (EA-type), USNO-B1.0 1265-0306001 and USNO-B1.0 1266-0313413 (EW-type) and compared to various other methods from the literature.

  • 3 authors
·
Feb 12, 2016

Is Heuristic Sampling Necessary in Training Deep Object Detectors?

To train accurate deep object detectors under the extreme foreground-background imbalance, heuristic sampling methods are always necessary, which either re-sample a subset of all training samples (hard sampling methods, \eg biased sampling, OHEM), or use all training samples but re-weight them discriminatively (soft sampling methods, \eg Focal Loss, GHM). In this paper, we challenge the necessity of such hard/soft sampling methods for training accurate deep object detectors. While previous studies have shown that training detectors without heuristic sampling methods would significantly degrade accuracy, we reveal that this degradation comes from an unreasonable classification gradient magnitude caused by the imbalance, rather than a lack of re-sampling/re-weighting. Motivated by our discovery, we propose a simple yet effective Sampling-Free mechanism to achieve a reasonable classification gradient magnitude by initialization and loss scaling. Unlike heuristic sampling methods with multiple hyperparameters, our Sampling-Free mechanism is fully data diagnostic, without laborious hyperparameters searching. We verify the effectiveness of our method in training anchor-based and anchor-free object detectors, where our method always achieves higher detection accuracy than heuristic sampling methods on COCO and PASCAL VOC datasets. Our Sampling-Free mechanism provides a new perspective to address the foreground-background imbalance. Our code is released at https://github.com/ChenJoya/sampling-free.

  • 6 authors
·
Sep 11, 2019

Wu's Method can Boost Symbolic AI to Rival Silver Medalists and AlphaGeometry to Outperform Gold Medalists at IMO Geometry

Proving geometric theorems constitutes a hallmark of visual reasoning combining both intuitive and logical skills. Therefore, automated theorem proving of Olympiad-level geometry problems is considered a notable milestone in human-level automated reasoning. The introduction of AlphaGeometry, a neuro-symbolic model trained with 100 million synthetic samples, marked a major breakthrough. It solved 25 of 30 International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) problems whereas the reported baseline based on Wu's method solved only ten. In this note, we revisit the IMO-AG-30 Challenge introduced with AlphaGeometry, and find that Wu's method is surprisingly strong. Wu's method alone can solve 15 problems, and some of them are not solved by any of the other methods. This leads to two key findings: (i) Combining Wu's method with the classic synthetic methods of deductive databases and angle, ratio, and distance chasing solves 21 out of 30 methods by just using a CPU-only laptop with a time limit of 5 minutes per problem. Essentially, this classic method solves just 4 problems less than AlphaGeometry and establishes the first fully symbolic baseline strong enough to rival the performance of an IMO silver medalist. (ii) Wu's method even solves 2 of the 5 problems that AlphaGeometry failed to solve. Thus, by combining AlphaGeometry with Wu's method we set a new state-of-the-art for automated theorem proving on IMO-AG-30, solving 27 out of 30 problems, the first AI method which outperforms an IMO gold medalist.

  • 5 authors
·
Apr 9, 2024