STRADAViT: Self-Supervised Domain Adaptation of Vision Transformer Backbones for Radio Astronomy
Organizations: Institute of Space Sciences and Astronomy, University of Malta, Msida, MSD2080, Malta · School of Physics and Astronomy, Royal Observatory, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom · Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF), Osservatorio Astrofisico di Catania, Catania, Italy
Abstract
Next-generation radio astronomy surveys are delivering millions of resolved sources, yet scalable morphology analysis remains difficult across heterogeneous telescopes and imaging pipelines. We present STRADAViT, a self-supervised continued-pretraining framework for learning transferable radio-astronomy encoders from Vision Transformer (ViT) backbones. It combines mixed-survey data curation, radio astronomy-aware training-view generation, and a ViT-MAE-initialized encoder family with optional register tokens. It supports reconstruction-only, contrastive-only, and two-stage branches. Our pretraining dataset comprises 512x512 radio astronomy cutouts drawn from four complementary sources (MeerKAT, ASKAP, LOFAR/LoTSS, and SKA SDC1 simulated data). We evaluate transfer with linear probing (LP) and fine-tuning (FT) on three morphology benchmarks spanning binary and multi-class settings (MiraBest, LoTSS DR2, and Radio Galaxy Zoo). An exploratory three-fold ablation grid guides selection of a register-based two-stage checkpoint using a fixed cross-dataset criterion. Across subsequent 15-seed paired downstream evaluations on fixed partitions, this checkpoint improves linear-probe Macro-F1 over its ViT-MAE initialization on all three benchmarks and improves fine-tuning on MiraBest and RGZ DR1, while LoTSS DR2 fine-tuning declines; all six differences remain statistically supported after Holm correction. A parallel DINOv2 experiment yields mixed adaptation effects: the procedure transfers, but the benefit is not uniform. STRADAViT thus improves frozen ViT representations while retaining clear dataset-dependent limitations and remaining below task-specialized methods on standard MiraBest classification.
Figures & tables
| Source | Cutouts | Ratio |
| MGCLS (MeerKAT), DR1 | 139500 | 0.24 |
| ASKAP (CASDA) | 261390 | 0.44 |
| LoTSS (LOFAR) | 177476 | 0.30 |
| SKA SDC1, DR1 | 12288 | 0.02 |
| Total | 590654 | 1.00 |
| Dataset | Samples |
| Radio Galaxy Zoo DR1 | 98,391 |
| MiraBest | 1,563 |
| LoTSS DR2 | 8,805 |
| Operator | Mild setting | Strong setting |
| Dihedral transforms | rotation ( ) + horizontal flip ( ) | Same as mild |
| Asinh stretch | , | , |
| Affine jitter | translation , scale jitter | translation , scale jitter |
| Gaussian noise | ||
| Banding | reconstruction branch: ; contrastive wide view: disabled ( ); | ; |
| Flux/background perturbation | , , | , , |
| Variant | Parameters |
| InfoNCE | temperature : (warmup 15% epochs), then |
| HCL | as above; , |
| Soft-HCL | as above; , |
| Setting | Reconstruction branch | Contrastive branch |
| Epochs | 35 | 35 |
| Patch size | 16 | 16 |
| Masking | mask ratio | unmasked encoder (no patch masking) |
| Views per cutout | 1 | |
| Per-device batch size | 256 | 64 |
| Gradient-accumulation steps | 2 | 8 |
| View strategy | MiraBest LP | LoTSS DR2 LP | RGZ DR1 LP | MiraBest FT | LoTSS DR2 FT | RGZ DR1 FT |
| Standard/no-ROI views | ||||||
| ROI-aware views | ||||||
| Delta, ROI-aware standard |
| Model | Protocol | MiraBest | LoTSS DR2 | RGZ DR1 | |||
| Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | ||
| DINOv2-Base | LP | ||||||
| FT | |||||||
| DINOv2-Small | LP | ||||||
| FT | |||||||
| DINOv2-Base(R) | LP | ||||||
| Loss | Protocol | MiraBest | LoTSS DR2 | RGZ DR1 | |||
| Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | ||
| No registers ( ) | |||||||
| L2 | LP | ||||||
| FT | |||||||
| L2+L1 | LP | ||||||
| FT | |||||||
| Loss | Protocol | MiraBest | LoTSS DR2 | RGZ DR1 | |||
| Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | ||
| No registers ( ) | |||||||
| InfoNCE | LP | ||||||
| FT | |||||||
| Soft-HCL | LP | ||||||
| FT | |||||||
| Setting | Initialization | MiraBest | LoTSS DR2 | RGZ DR1 | |||
| Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | ||
| Linear Probe | DINOv2-Base | ||||||
| Linear Probe | DINOv2-Base(R) | ||||||
| Fine-Tuning | DINOv2-Base | ||||||
| Fine-Tuning | DINOv2-Base(R) | ||||||
| Reconstruction loss | Contrastive loss | MiraBest | LoTSS DR2 | RGZ DR1 | |||
| Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | ||
| No registers ( ) | |||||||
| L2 | InfoNCE | ||||||
| Soft-HCL | |||||||
| HCL | |||||||
| L2+L1 | InfoNCE | ||||||
| Reconstruction loss | Contrastive loss | MiraBest | LoTSS DR2 | RGZ DR1 | |||
| Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | ||
| No registers ( ) | |||||||
| L2 | InfoNCE | ||||||
| Soft-HCL | |||||||
| HCL | |||||||
| L2+L1 | InfoNCE | ||||||
| Protocol | Branch | MiraBest | LoTSS DR2 | RGZ DR1 |
| LP | Contrastive-only, Soft-HCL | |||
| Two-stage, L2+L1 Soft-HCL | ||||
| Delta (pp) | ||||
| FT | Contrastive-only, Soft-HCL | |||
| Two-stage, L2+L1 Soft-HCL | ||||
| Delta (pp) |
| Setting | Model / comparison | MiraBest | LoTSS DR2 | RGZ DR1 |
| Linear Probe | ||||
| Release checkpoint | ||||
| Delta vs ViT-MAE (pp) | ||||
| Delta vs highest-mean stable DINOv2 (pp) | ||||
| Fine-Tuning | ||||
| Release checkpoint | ||||
| Dataset | Protocol | Reference | Adapted model | [95% CI] (pp) | ||
| STRADAViT versus ViT-MAE initialization | ||||||
| MiraBest | LP | |||||
| MiraBest | FT | |||||
| LoTSS DR2 | LP | |||||
| LoTSS DR2 | FT | |||||
| RGZ DR1 | LP | |||||
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Study and method | Reported result | Split and evaluation details |
| Scaife and Porter (2021) : supervised -equivariant CNN | Accuracy % (SD) | Standard split; five training repeats; rotated test images |
| Bowles et al. (2021) : attention-gated CNN | Accuracy 92% | MiraBest Confident test set; published point estimate |
| Hossain et al. (2023) : BYOL E(2)-equivariant G-CNN | Accuracy % (SD) | Standard split; 15 training repeats |
| Slijepcevic et al. (2023) : RGZ-pretrained BYOL, fine-tuned | Error % (SE) | Standard split; 10 training repeats |
| Andrianomena and Tang (2023) : VDVAE + extra trees | Accuracy 82% | Standard split; frozen latent features; images |
| STRADAViT: linear probe | Accuracy % (SD) | Standard split; 15 seeds; fixed release checkpoint |
| Protocol | Model | Accuracy (%) | Error (%) | Macro-F1 | Weighted-F1 | FR I F1 | FR II F1 |
| LP | ViT-MAE | ||||||
| LP | STRADAViT | ||||||
| FT | ViT-MAE | ||||||
| FT | STRADAViT |