Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Reported performance in small astronomical image datasets can reflect object reuse, field-of-view differences, acquisition settings, and catalogue-derived properties as well as astronomical morphology. We designed {} to measure these effects in a four-class task comprising galaxies, globular clusters, nebulae, and open clusters. The dataset contains 370 catalogue-supported physical objects, each represented by three Digitised Sky Survey FITS bands, and uses a group-constrained split of 222 training, 75 validation, and 73 test objects. We compared a custom CNN--Transformer trained from scratch with ImageNet-pretrained ResNet-50 and ViT-B/16 under an adaptive full-field representation, a common angular field, and two central-region-masked controls, using three fixed seeds. In the one-pass object-independent test, mean balanced accuracy on the adaptive view was 0.773±0.014, 0.874±0.054, and 0.866±0.023 for the custom model, ResNet-50, and ViT-B/16, respectively. No primary architecture contrast rejected its null after Holm correction; ResNet-50 and ViT-B/16 differed by 0.007 balanced-accuracy points (95% cluster-bootstrap interval $[-0.048,0.062]$). Controls based on acquisition and catalogue metadata reached 0.721--0.735, and central-region-masked adaptive views reached 0.731--0.800. These results demonstrate generalisation to unseen physical objects, but also show that image context, acquisition settings, and catalogue-derived object properties carry substantial class information. In this regime, high accuracy cannot be interpreted as evidence that a classifier learned target morphology, and the comparison does not isolate architecture from pretraining.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eraldo Pereira Marinho (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: