Contrastive learning framework enhances galaxy morphology classification in data-scarce contexts, indicating significant improvements in adaptability.
Galaxy morphology classification relies on precise structural feature characterization, yet expert classifications are scarce. While citizen science initiatives (e.g., Galaxy Zoo) provide millions of crowd-sourced labels, traditional supervised models lack cross-dataset generalizability and few-shot adaptability. To address these, we propose Contrastive Language-image Pretraining Model for Galaxy Morphology Classification (CLIP-GMC), a framework leveraging the contrastive vision-text model CLIP to unlock the utility of citizen science labels for robust classification. CLIP’s pretrained embedding space enables flexible, text-guided feature learning with superior transfer and zero-shot capabilities. CLIP-GMC involves two stages: (1) pretraining the model using synthetic image-text pairs generated from Sloan Digital Sky Survey data in Galaxy Zoo 2, translating hierarchical morphological decisions into descriptive text; (2) validating the model on Galaxy MNIST (4 class) and Galaxy10 the DECam Legacy Survey (DECaLS; 10 class) across varying training data ratios (100%–1%) to assess few-shot and cross-dataset transferability. Experimental results show its exceptional superiority in low-data regimes and competitive high-data performance. On Galaxy10 DECaLS, it achieves 0.8390 accuracy/0.8350 macro-F1 with 50% data (comparable to full-data ConvNeXt-B: 0.8431/0.8250) and 0.7203/0.6991 with 1% data, outperforming supervised baselines and Zoobot2. At 100% data, its 0.8431 accuracy matches ConvNeXt-B but is slightly lower than Zoobot2 (GZ-Evo: 0.8670). On Galaxy MNIST, 10% data yields 0.9234 accuracy (surpassing full-data supervised 0.9052) and reliable zero-shot transfer (0.6865/0.6474), with 100% data accuracy (0.9321) comparable to Zoobot2. These highlight CLIP-GMC’s exceptional data efficiency and generalizability, offering a robust solution for data-scarce galaxy morphology classification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
CAI et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: