astronomy/ai produced the result/arXiv 2025 · v2
Neural networks sort 400,000 JWST galaxies to trace when spirals and spheroids appeared
Astronomers used two neural networks to classify the shapes of about 400,000 galaxies in JWST's COSMOS-Web survey, and to spot stellar bars, then counted each shape across cosmic time.
spectrum · one line per step, placed by what the step does · bright lines used AI
COSMOS-Web: The emergence of the Hubble Sequence
arXiv, 2025
doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.03532 · record aix-00104 v2 · checked 2026-10-08
- AI was for
- Classification
- Model family
- Convolutional neural network
- Checked by
- Held-out
- Code
- not reported
The finding the paper is about came from the AI.
What this research was about
Look at nearby galaxies and they fall into a few tidy families: smooth round spheroids, flat discs with spiral arms, and mixtures with a bright central bulge. This filing system is known as the Hubble Sequence. The hard question is when it came into being. Because light takes time to reach us, distant galaxies are seen as they were long ago, so looking further away is a way of looking back. But the further away a galaxy is, the smaller and fainter it appears, and the harder it becomes to say what shape it has. Judging the shapes of hundreds of thousands of faint smudges by eye is also slow work.
The researchers used images from the James Webb Space Telescope's COSMOS-Web survey, which sees in infrared light and resolves fine detail. They set out to assign each galaxy a shape class, to work out how much stellar mass sat in each class at each era, and to check separately for galaxies that had stopped forming stars and those still making them. They also looked for stellar bars, the straight bridges of stars that cross the middle of many disc galaxies and only form in a settled, rotating disc.
Where AI came in
Every shape measurement the study rests on came from a neural network. One was a convolutional neural network, a type of model that learns to recognise patterns in images. It was trained using shape labels from an earlier Hubble survey as its guide, but retrained from scratch so that it would work on the newer Webb pictures. Ten versions were trained per filter, and their answers averaged, with the spread between them used as a measure of how settled each verdict was. This sorted galaxies into four broad classes: spheroids, bulge-dominated, disc-dominated and peculiar.
The second was Zoobot, a model already trained on large numbers of galaxy images, which the team then fine-tuned on classifications that human volunteers had made of Webb images from another survey. It outputs something that stands in for volunteer votes, and was sampled repeatedly as though a hundred people had looked at each galaxy, giving the chance that a galaxy looks featured, is seen edge-on, or hosts a bar. In both cases the AI stood in for human eyes, replacing the expert judgement and volunteer inspection that shape classification normally requires. The counting and statistics that followed were done without machine learning.
Written by AIxSci from the checked record below, to give context for readers outside the field. It is not part of the record.
The work
Technical · from the record
Deep learning was used to assign about 400,000 COSMOS-Web galaxies brighter than F150W=27 to four morphological classes (spheroids, bulge-dominated, disk-dominated, peculiar), and a fine-tuned Zoobot model was used to estimate the probability that each galaxy hosts a stellar bar. These classifications were combined with SED-fitted stellar masses to measure stellar mass functions for each morphological type between z~0.2 and z~7, separately for quiescent and star-forming galaxies. The authors report that at z>4.5 the massive population (log M*/M_sun > 10) is dominated by disturbed morphologies (~70%) with the remainder very compact (~30%), that Hubble-type morphologies rise in abundance below z~4 and dominate massive galaxies by z~3, and that massive quenched galaxies are predominantly bulge-dominated from z~4 onward while low-mass quenched galaxies are typically disk-dominated. Using bar frequency as a proxy, they estimate that rotating stellar disks have been common (>50%) among massive star-forming galaxies since z~2-2.5.
How AI was used
Two learned classifiers were applied to COSMOS-Web NIRCam cutouts. For global morphology, a convolutional neural network with adversarial domain adaptation transferred CANDELS/HST morphology labels to JWST imaging; the same architecture, 32x32 pixel input size and normalisation as the source work were kept, but the networks were retrained from scratch with COSMOS-Web images as the target domain. Ten trainings with different initialisations and slightly different training sets were run for each of F150W, F277W and F444W, and the four class probabilities were averaged across the ten networks, with their standard deviation used as a robustness measure; the classification filter was chosen by redshift to keep a similar rest-frame band. For internal structure, the pre-trained Zoobot EfficientNetB0 encoder (5.33M parameters, trained on the GZ Evo dataset of 820k images) was fine-tuned on Galaxy Zoo classifications of JWST CEERS images, with three independent fine-tunings per filter. COSMOS-Web cutouts were sized from each galaxy's effective radius and axis ratio and interpolated to 424x424 pixels to match the model input. The fine-tuned model, which outputs Dirichlet parameters emulating volunteer votes, was sampled 100 times assuming 100 volunteers per sample to derive featured, edge-on and bar probabilities, which were then thresholded to select bar candidates. Non-learned steps followed: a half-light-radius cut against the F444W PSF defined a compact class, an exponential fit to the observed bar fraction versus magnitude supplied debiasing weights, and 1/Vmax stellar mass functions were computed and fitted by MCMC with model choice by corrected Akaike information criterion.
The shape of the work
Structural · the record, drawn
no AI
Assemble COSMOS-Web imaging and ancillary photometry
Obtaining raw data, whether by measurement, download or retrieval.
Mosaics are created at 30 mas for short-wavelength filters and 60 mas for long-wavelength and MIRI filters.where the paper describes this · verbatim
no AI
Fit SEDs for redshifts, masses and structural parameters; select sample
Cleaning, filtering, normalising or labelling data already obtained.
We use a standard SED fitting approach (LePHARE;) to estimate photometric redshifts and physical properties of galaxieswhere the paper describes this · verbatim
AI
Train domain-adapted CNN ensembles for global morphology
Fitting model parameters, including fine-tuning an existing model. The AI stood in for manual curation.
We perform an ensemble of 10 separate trainings for each of the three filterswhere the paper describes this · verbatim
AI
Classify galaxies into four global morphological classes
Running a trained model over new data to predict, classify or score. The AI stood in for expert judgement.
We use the neural network models from to classify galaxies into four broad morphological classeswhere the paper describes this · verbatim
AI
Fine-tune Zoobot foundation model on Galaxy Zoo CEERS labels
Fitting model parameters, including fine-tuning an existing model. The AI stood in for manual curation.
the encoder is fine-tuned with Galaxy Zoo classifications performed on JWST CEERS imageswhere the paper describes this · verbatim
AI
Predict featured, edge-on and bar probabilities
Running a trained model over new data to predict, classify or score. The AI stood in for manual curation.
we sample the fine-tuned model 100 times, assuming 100 volunteers per samplewhere the paper describes this · verbatim
no AI
Apply class thresholds, compact-size cut and magnitude debiasing weights
Reducing a candidate set by filtering or ranking, in a single pass.
Alongside the four prior classifications, we categorize unresolved galaxies into a distinct compact class.where the paper describes this · verbatim
no AI
Compute stellar mass functions, fits and number densities by morphology
Extracting understanding from model behaviour.
We run 60,000 iterations with a number of chains equal to eight times the number of free parameters in each model.where the paper describes this · verbatim
What the record says
Technical · every part carries its own basis
+ in the paper~ our reading− not reported
How to read the quotations. A quotation shows where the paper describes something. It does not quote every value beside it: one passage locates a part of the work, and values without their own quotation are our reading of that passage.
All morphological classes and bar identifications that the stellar mass functions and every conclusion rest on were produced by neural networks; no non-AI morphology measurement underpins the results.
but retrain from scratch using COSMOS-Web images as the target domainwhere the paper describes this · verbatim
The confusion matrices indicate satisfactory accuracies given the complexity of the task and the training set size.where the paper describes this · verbatim
All data are made publicly available with this publication.where the paper describes this · verbatim
What this paper did not report
Technical · absence is published deliberately
- CodeWhether the code is available is not stated.
- Trained model weightsWhether the trained model is available is not stated.
- ComputeThe hardware or time used is not stated.
- How many were testedThe paper gives no count of what was tested.
- Version of Convolutional neural network with adversarial domain adaptation (classifier of Huertas-Company et al.)Which version of the model was used is not stated.
About this article
Record aix-00104, version 2, checked by a person on 2026-10-08. The record describes the paper; it does not assess whether the paper's findings are right. The paper is published under CC-BY; quotations are at most 25 words. How we work · Report an error