Generalization from Low- to Moderate-Resolution Spectra with Neural Networks for Stellar Parameter Estimation: A Case Study with DESI
Organizations: Department of Physics & Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA · Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA · Center for Cosmology and AstroParticle Physics (CCAPP), The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA · Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Königstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany ·
Abstract
Cross-survey generalization is a critical challenge in stellar spectral analysis, particularly in cases such as transferring from low- to moderate-resolution surveys. We investigate this problem using pre-trained models, focusing on simple neural networks such as multilayer perceptrons (MLPs), with a case study transferring from LAMOST low-resolution spectra (LRS) to DESI medium-resolution spectra (MRS). Specifically, we pre-train MLPs on either LRS or their embeddings and fine-tune them for application to DESI stellar spectra. We compare MLPs trained directly on spectra with those trained on embeddings derived from transformer-based models (self-supervised foundation models pre-trained for multiple downstream tasks). We also evaluate different fine-tuning strategies, including residual-head fine-tuning, LoRA, and full fine-tuning. We find that MLPs pre-trained on LAMOST LRS achieve strong performance, even without fine-tuning, and that modest fine-tuning with DESI spectra further improves the results. For iron abundance, embeddings from a transformer-based model yield advantages in the metal-rich ([Fe/H] > -1.0) regime, but underperform in the metal-poor regime compared to MLPs trained directly on LRS. We also show that the optimal fine-tuning strategy depends on the specific stellar parameter under consideration. These results highlight that simple pre-trained MLPs can provide competitive cross-survey generalization, while the role of spectral foundation models for cross-survey stellar parameter estimation requires further exploration.
Figures & tables
| [Fe/H] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Full/MP/MR) | lrs | embed | embed-align | embed-split |
| residual | 0.923 / 0.636 / 0.904 | 0.922 / 0.196 / 0.913 | 0.922 / 0.003 / 0.918 | 0.933 / 0.219 / 0.927 |
| LoRA | 0.922 / 0.571 / 0.904 | 0.921 / 0.031 / 0.916 | 0.928 / 0.131 / 0.922 | 0.933 / 0.133 / 0.930 |
| full fine-tune | 0.923 / 0.329 / 0.911 | 0.926 / 0.173 / 0.918 | 0.927 / 0.085 / 0.922 | 0.933 / 0.079 / 0.931 |
| zero-shot | 0.873 / 0.678 / 0.833 | 0.833 / 0.694 / 0.779 | 0.851 / 0.465 / 0.810 | 0.839 / 0.537 / 0.791 |
| from scratch | 0.880 / -0.736 / 0.878 | 0.877 / -1.246 / 0.886 | 0.647 / -0.072 / 0.542 | 0.794 / -0.649 / 0.759 |
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| [Fe/H] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| M-poor:M-rich | 243:1826 | 117:883 | 59:441 |
| lrs | 0.923 / 0.636 / 0.904 | 0.916 / 0.619 / 0.894 | 0.910 / 0.600 / 0.886 |
| embed | 0.922 / 0.196 / 0.913 | 0.920 / 0.160 / 0.911 | 0.913 / 0.216 / 0.900 |
| embed-align | 0.922 / 0.003 / 0.918 | 0.922 / -0.026 / 0.918 | 0.910 / -0.233 / 0.907 |
| embed-split | 0.933 / 0.219 / 0.927 | 0.927 / 0.058 / 0.924 | 0.926 / 0.213 / 0.917 |
| from scratch | 0.880 / -0.736 / 0.878 | 0.826 / -1.663 / 0.826 | 0.433 / -3.575 / 0.336 |
| [Fe/H] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| M-poor:M-rich | 243:1826 | 117:883 | 59:441 |
| residual | 0.923 / 0.636 / 0.904 | 0.916 / 0.619 / 0.894 | 0.910 / 0.600 / 0.886 |
| LoRA | 0.922 / 0.571 / 0.904 | 0.912 / 0.496 / 0.891 | 0.914 / 0.590 / 0.892 |
| full fine-tune | 0.923 / 0.329 / 0.911 | 0.916 / 0.401 / 0.900 | 0.915 / 0.516 / 0.895 |
| scratch | 0.880 / -0.736 / 0.878 | 0.826 / -1.663 / 0.826 | 0.433 / -3.575 / 0.336 |
| M-poor:M-rich | 23:177 | 12:88 | 0:0 |
| Sample | Selection Criteria | Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| DESI DR1 | |||
| Initial cross-match | APOGEE: { STARFLAG , FE_H_FLAG , MG_FE_FLAG } =0 ; SNR | ||
| DESI: RVS_WARN=0 ; when available, PRIMARY=True | 8,104 | ||
| Training sample | K, 469 metal-poor + 1,600 metal-rich | 2,069 | For fine-tuning or scratch training |
| Testing sample | Remaining stars with K | 5,539 | For testing only |
| –[Fe/H] reference | K after initial cross-match | 7,608 | For APOGEE [ /Fe]–[Fe/H] reference |
Cross-Dataset Generalization
Cross-dataset generalization studies whether AI models retain accuracy, calibration, and usefulness on data from sources beyond their training set.
See all 142 papers