Self-Supervised Representation Learning: From Spectral Foundation Models to Auroral Emission Spectra
Authors: Matthieu Le Lain, Gaël Cessateur, Sébastien Lefèvre
Organizations: IRISA, UMR CNRS 6074, Université Bretagne Sud, Vannes, France · Royal Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy, Brussels, Belgium · UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
Auroral spectrographs such as the Auroral Spectrograph In Skibotn (ASIS) record hundreds of thousands of emission spectra, but only a few hundred can be labelled by an expert. To exploit the rest, we pretrain a 1D Vision Transformer with a masked autoencoder on 223,000 unlabelled spectra. Without labels, its representation recovers the emission-line intensity ratios that physicists use to diagnose the precipitating particles (R^2 0.91 vs. 0.77 for an untrained control) and, under one linear probe, classifies as well as 13 features designed by experts. Fine-tuned, the model outperforms the previous supervised auroral classifier on its own benchmark (macro-AP 88.5 vs. 77.8), reaches 0.870 mAP, and exceeds the same architecture trained from scratch by +0.159 with 10% of the labels; attribution shows that it uses both N2+ bands. Could an existing pretrained model replace it? Two astronomical spectral foundation models and a time-series model transfer according to their spectral window: SpectraFM, trained in the infrared, falls below the untrained control, whereas SpecFormer, trained in the optical, approaches in-domain pretraining without reaching it.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) An ASIS spectrum, the expert’s classes above their criterion. (b) Ridge-regression R 2 of five line ratios read from the frozen embedding, pretrained encoder vs. untrained control (5-fold; ratios clipped at the 1st/99th percentiles; legend: mean of the five). (c) Share of positive IG attribution per window ( ±2 nm around nine lines; N 2 first-positive (1PG) band: 654–687 nm minus the H α window), per class of the fine-tuned classifier on its positives; rest outside the windows; red frame = annotation criterion; ⋆ = absent from the expert features.
Representation
Window (nm)
mAP
@10 %
Untrained control
—
0.816 ± 0.034
0.683 ± 0.036
Expert features
—
0.861 ± 0.032
0.823 ± 0.041
Ours (auroral MAE)
405–687
0.863 ± 0.037
0.829 ± 0.036
Expert feat. + Ours
405–687
0.864 ± 0.038
0.831 ± 0.037
SpecFormer (galaxies)
360–980
0.844 ± 0.028
0.805 ± 0.037
Mantis (time series)
—
0.824 ± 0.025
0.758 ± 0.047
Table 1: Frozen representations under one linear probe (logistic regression, regularisation selected by inner cross-validation on the training folds), 7 classes, 5×3 cross-validation, ± standard deviation across folds. Window: wavelengths of the pretraining data. Last column: mAP with 10 % of the annotations (subsets of Table 2 ). +: concatenation of the two. Bold: best single representation.
Configuration
mAP
F1
AUROC
Expert features (probe)
0.861 ± 0.032
0.789
0.910
SSL frozen, head only
0.870 ± 0.034
0.812
0.908
SSL fine-tuned, 15 ep.
0.870 ± 0.032
0.804
0.909
SSL fine-tuned, 100 ep.
0.839 ± 0.030
0.731
0.890
From scratch, 15 ep.
0.840 ± 0.033
0.776
0.877
From scratch, 100 ep.
0.800 ± 0.037
0.730
0.856
Table 2: Seven-class fine-tuning (811 spectra, 5×3 cross-validation). Top: training strategies (mAP, F1, AUROC), all with the same linear head (frozen, head only: encoder not updated); the expert-feature row is the probe of Table 1 . Bottom: label efficiency (mAP) with a fraction of each fold’s training labels, same subsets for the three columns; last column, gain of pretraining over the same model from scratch. Bold: best per column (top) and row (bottom).
Class
Expert feat.
SSL frozen
SSL fine-tuned
H α
94.6 ± 1.7
94.9 ± 2.0
95.7 ± 2.3
molecular
92.0 ± 2.5
92.8 ± 2.7
93.0 ± 1.8
low- e−
84.8 ± 3.9
84.9 ± 4.5
84.2 ± 5.0
cloudy
89.1 ± 3.4
89.2 ± 2.2
90.5 ± 1.6
dawn/dusk
64.2 ± 25.4
68.4 ± 25.4
67.1 ± 23.5
[N I] 520
85.1 ± 3.2
85.6 ± 3.4
86.0 ± 2.6
Table 3: Per-class AP (%) and macro-AP ( ± standard deviation across folds) of the strategies of Table 2 (frozen encoder, head only, 100 epochs; full fine-tuning, 15 epochs) and of the expert features (probe of Table 1 ); 811 spectra, 7 classes, 5×3 cross-validation. Best value per row in bold.
Foundation models are now increasingly being developed for Earth observation (EO), yet they often rely on stochastic masking that do not explicitly enforce physics constraints; a critical trustworthiness limitation, in particular for predictive models that guide public health decisions. In this work, we propose SpecTM (Spectral Targeted Masking), a physics-informed masking design that encourages the reconstruction of targeted bands from cross-spectral context during pretraining. To achieve this, we developed an adaptable multi-task (band reconstruction, bio-optical index inference, and 8-day-ahead temporal prediction) self-supervised learning (SSL) framework that encodes spectrally intrinsic representations via joint optimization, and evaluated it on a downstream microcystin concentration regression model using NASA PACE hyperspectral imagery over Lake Erie. SpecTM achieves R^2 = 0.695 (current week) and R^2 = 0.620 (8-day-ahead) predictions surpassing all baseline models by (+34% (0.51 Ridge) and +99% (SVR 0.31)) respectively. Our ablation experiments show targeted masking improves predictions by +0.037 R^2 over random masking. Furthermore, it outperforms strong baselines with 2.2x superior label efficiency under extreme scarcity. SpecTM enables physics-informed representation learning across EO domains and improves the interpretability of foundation models.
Syed Usama Imtiaz, Mitra Nasr Azadani, Nasrin Alamdari
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
Astronomical spectra encode rich physical information, but drawing scientific conclusions from spectral features typically requires expert interpretation. This paper presents AstroSpecLM, a spectrum-language model that connects one-dimensional DESI spectra with Qwen3-4B to answer questions and provide explanations grounded in spectral evidence. Instead of generating question-answer pairs directly from templates or raw catalog fields, we first distill each spectrum into a compact set of catalog- and spectrum-derived facts, then use these facts as references to generate instruction-following conversations. The resulting model is competitive with specialist supervised baselines on classification and redshift estimation, while additionally producing natural-language explanations that reference specific spectral features. Our results indicate that grounding a language model in one-dimensional scientific spectra is feasible, and that fact-mediated instruction data yields a model capable of both prediction and explanation.
A spectral foundation model should remain useful when laboratories preprocess spectra differently. The standard test trains a classifier under one pipeline and evaluates under another, taking preserved accuracy as evidence of learned invariance. However, these models normalize each input before any learned parameter is applied. When normalization maps differently preprocessed spectra to the same vector, the encoder receives identical inputs and the measured invariance cannot be attributed to learning. We propose a normalization-only attribution control: compare the encoder against its normalization before interpreting transfer as learned invariance. On six Raman datasets the encoder does not measurably improve transfer over its normalization. A controlled experiment confirms invariance develops only when variation reaches the encoder past normalization. Across three systems, no encoder improves relative retention over its normalization. An audit of eighteen configurations across five modalities confirms the issue is widespread: the normalization-only control should be reported before crediting transfer to the encoder.
Dongjun Wei, Hongyi Wu
ESCP Business School, Paris · OpluxCare Tech Group Ltd. · The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong