I have a busy day in front of me here in Not-Barcelona so I thought I’d do a quick post sharing a video about the Euclid Early Release Observations (EROs) that came out last week. The press materials accompanying the release of the EROs and the science paper relating to this work, mention “freely floating planets”, but that doesn’t make sense in terms of the modern definition of a planet so here they are described as sub-stellar objects. The paper describing this work can be found on the arXiv here.
Archive for May, 2024
Sub-Stellar Objects in the Euclid Early Release Observations
Posted in Euclid, The Universe and Stuff with tags arXiv:2401.00204, Euclid, planet formation, sub-stellar objects on May 31, 2024 by telescoperIs machine learning good or bad for the natural sciences?
Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags AI, Artificial Intelligence, arXiv:2405.18095, Astrophysics, Cosmology, Data Science, deep-learning, Machine Learning on May 30, 2024 by telescoperBefore I head off on a trip to various parts of not-Barcelona, I thought I’d share a somewhat provocative paper by David Hogg and Soledad Villar. In my capacity as journal editor over the past few years I’ve noticed that there has been a phenomenal increase in astrophysics papers discussing applications of various forms of Machine Leaning (ML). This paper looks into issues around the use of ML not just in astrophysics but elsewhere in the natural sciences.
The abstract reads:
Machine learning (ML) methods are having a huge impact across all of the sciences. However, ML has a strong ontology – in which only the data exist – and a strong epistemology – in which a model is considered good if it performs well on held-out training data. These philosophies are in strong conflict with both standard practices and key philosophies in the natural sciences. Here, we identify some locations for ML in the natural sciences at which the ontology and epistemology are valuable. For example, when an expressive machine learning model is used in a causal inference to represent the effects of confounders, such as foregrounds, backgrounds, or instrument calibration parameters, the model capacity and loose philosophy of ML can make the results more trustworthy. We also show that there are contexts in which the introduction of ML introduces strong, unwanted statistical biases. For one, when ML models are used to emulate physical (or first-principles) simulations, they introduce strong confirmation biases. For another, when expressive regressions are used to label datasets, those labels cannot be used in downstream joint or ensemble analyses without taking on uncontrolled biases. The question in the title is being asked of all of the natural sciences; that is, we are calling on the scientific communities to take a step back and consider the role and value of ML in their fields; the (partial) answers we give here come from the particular perspective of physics
arXiv:2405.18095
P.S. The answer to the question posed in the title is probably “yes”.
On foot of an Irish idiom
Posted in Irish Language, Science Politics with tags Hiberno-English, On foot of on May 29, 2024 by telescoperI noticed the following phrasing in the media in connection with the departure of Philip Nolan from his position at Science Foundation Ireland, e.g.
On foot of the investigation, the board of SFI wrote to the five senior staff members with the findings.
Irish Independent, 29th May 2024
The use of the idiomatic phrase “on foot of” (meaning “as a result of” or “following”, etc, as distinct from “on foot”, meaning “by walking”) seems quite commonplace in Hiberno-English, even in judicial proceedings, but I’ve never encountered it at all outside Ireland. This gives me an excuse to direct your attention to this post from elsewhere about this very matter from which I stole the title of this short post. I suspect the phrase in question may be formed by direct translation from a construction in the Irish language, which would explain why it isn’t used outside Ireland, but I’m happy to be corrected if wrong…
Research Inventy Journal
Posted in Open Access with tags Open Access, Research Inventy Journal on May 28, 2024 by telescoper
It is great to see the number of open access scientific journals increasing. Just yesterday I was contacted by another one that was previously unknown to me. The style of the advertisement leaves no doubt about the quality of this publication nor of the papers therein; from submission to publication within 24 hours, and all for 900 Rupees (about $10)! Amazing! There’s no question that this journal fills a much needed gap.
An analysis of the effects of sharing research data, code, and preprints on citations
Posted in OJAp Papers, Open Access with tags arXiv:2404.16171, Open Access, open science, Peer Review, preprints, Publishing on May 27, 2024 by telescoperWhenever researchers ask me why I am an advocate of open science the response that first occurs to me is somewhat altruistic: sharing results and data is good for the whole community, as it enables the proper progress of research through independent scrutiny. There is however a selfish reason for open science, demonstrates rather well by a recent preprint on arXiv. The abstract is here:
Calls to make scientific research more open have gained traction with a range of societal stakeholders. Open Science practices include but are not limited to the early sharing of results via preprints and openly sharing outputs such as data and code to make research more reproducible and extensible. Existing evidence shows that adopting Open Science practices has effects in several domains. In this study, we investigate whether adopting one or more Open Science practices leads to significantly higher citations for an associated publication, which is one form of academic impact. We use a novel dataset known as Open Science Indicators, produced by PLOS and DataSeer, which includes all PLOS publications from 2018 to 2023 as well as a comparison group sampled from the PMC Open Access Subset. In total, we analyze circa 122’000 publications. We calculate publication and author-level citation indicators and use a broad set of control variables to isolate the effect of Open Science Indicators on received citations. We show that Open Science practices are adopted to different degrees across scientific disciplines. We find that the early release of a publication as a preprint correlates with a significant positive citation advantage of about 20.2% on average. We also find that sharing data in an online repository correlates with a smaller yet still positive citation advantage of 4.3% on average. However, we do not find a significant citation advantage for sharing code. Further research is needed on additional or alternative measures of impact beyond citations. Our results are likely to be of interest to researchers, as well as publishers, research funders, and policymakers.
Colavizza et al., arXiv:2404.16171
This analysis isn’t based on astrophysics, but I think the relatively high citation rates of papers in the Open Journal of Astrophysics are at least in part due to the fact that virtually all our papers are all available as preprints arXiv prior to publication. Citations aren’t everything, of course, but the positive effect of preprinting is an important factor in communicating the science you are doing.
General Science at Maynooth
Posted in Education, Maynooth with tags education, General Science, Learning, mathematics, Maynooth University, Oisin Davey, Science, teaching on May 27, 2024 by telescoperFollowing on – sort of – from yesterday’s post – here is a little promotional video about the ‘Omnibus’ Bachelor of Science undergraduate course (codename MH201). I have blogged about this course before (e.g. here) but this gives me an opportunity to repeat the salient points.
Currently, most students doing Science subjects here in Maynooth enter on the General Science programme a four-year Omnibus BSc course that involves doing four subjects in the first year, but becoming increasingly specialized thereafter. That’s not unlike the Natural Sciences course I did at Cambridge, except that students at Maynooth can do both Mathematical Physics and Experimental Physics in the first year as separate choices. I’d recommend anyone who wants to do Physics in the long run to do both of these, as they do complement each other. Other possibilities include Chemistry, Computer Science, Biology, etc.
In Year 1 students do four subjects (one of which has to be Mathematics). That is narrowed down to three in Year 2 and two in Year 3. In their final year, students can stick with two subjects for a Joint Honours (Double Major) degree, or specialise in one, for Single Honours.
I like this programme very much because it does not force the students to choose a specialism before they have had a taste of the subject, and that it is flexible enough to accommodate Joint Honours qualifications in, e.g., Theoretical Physics and Mathematics. It also allows us to enrol students onto Physics degrees who have not done Physics or Applied Mathematics as part of the Leaving Certificate.
Anyway, this video features Oisín Davey, who took Mathematical Physics, Experimental Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in his first year. As a matter of fact I taught him in Year 1 (Mechanics & Special Relativity) and Year 2 (Vector Calculus and Fourier Series) but, despite that, as he explains, he has decided to persist with Mathematical Physics. He will be in the final year next academic year, after he returns from his summer in CERN, and I’ll be back from sabbatical.
Free Atkins!
Posted in Biographical, Education, The Universe and Stuff with tags chemistry, Concepts in Physical Chemistry, education, Peter Atkins, Physical Chemistry, Physics, Science on May 26, 2024 by telescoperI took my first degree in the Natural Sciences Tripos at the University of Cambridge. This involved doing a very general first year comprising four different elements that could be chosen flexibly. I quickly settled on Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics for Natural Sciences to reflect my A-level results but was struggling for the fourth. In the end I picked the one that seemed most like Physics, a course called Crystalline Materials. I didn’t like that at all, and wish I’d done some Biology instead – Biology of Cells and Biology of Organisms were both options – or even Geology, but I stuck with it for the first year.
Having to do such a wide range of subjects was very challenging. The timetable was densely packed and the pace was considerable. In the second year, however, I was able to focus on Mathematics and Physics and although it was still intense it was a bit more focussed. I ended up doing Theoretical Physics in my final year, including a theory project.
My best teacher at School, Dr Geoeff Swinden, was a chemist (he had a doctorate in organic chemistry from Oxford University) and when I went to Cambridge I fully expected to specialisze in Chemistry rather than Physics. I loved the curly arrows and all that. But two things changed. One was that I found the Physics content of the first year far more interesting – and the lecturers and tutors far more inspiring – than Chemistry, and the other was that my considerable ineptitude at practical work made me doubt that I had a future in a chemistry laboratory. And so it came to pass that I switched allegiance to Physics, a decision I am very glad I made.
(It was only towards the end of my degree that I started to take Astrophysics seriously as a possible specialism, but that’s another story…)
Anyway, when I turned up at Cambridge over 40 years ago to begin my course, and having Chemistry as a probable end point, I bought all the recommended text books, one of which was Physical Chemistry by P.W. Atkins. I found a picture (above) of the 1982 edition which may well be the one I bought (although I vaguely remember the one I had being in paperback). I thought it was a very good book, and it has gone into many subsequent editions. I also found the Physical part of Chemistry quite straightforward because it is basically Physics. I even got higher marks in Chemistry in the first year than I did in Physics but that didn’t alter my decision to drop Chemistry after the first year. When I did so, I followed tradition and sold my copy to a new undergraduate along with the other books relating to courses that I dropped.
Yesterday I found out that Peter Atkins has decided to make one of his books available to download. The book concerned is however not the compendious tome I bought, but a shorter summary called Concepts in Physical Chemistry, which was published in 1995. This is no doubt a very useful text for beginning Chemistry students so I thought I’d pass on this information. You can download it here, although you have to do it chapter by chapter in PDF files.
P.S. Chemistry in Spanish is ‘Química’. Since Physics and Chemistry share the same building in the University of Barcelona, where I am currently working, I frequently walk past rooms with doors marked ‘Quim’ (but I have never taken the opportunity to enter one).
Maynooth University Library Cat Update
Posted in Maynooth with tags Maynooth University Library Cat on May 25, 2024 by telescoperI thought I’d share this image of Maynooth University Library Cat, complete with daisy bonnet. He doesn’t look entirely gruntled with his new headgear, and I’m not sure how long it stayed on his bonce, but it’s nice to see him in fine fettle, though he’s getting a few more grey hairs. Aren’t we all?




