A survey detection channel overrides the pixels in an astronomical foundation model, and biases tomographic mean redshifts
Ihor Kendiukhov
Abstract
Foundation models for astronomy are trained on survey pixels together with the catalogue products derived from those pixels. Those catalogues are incomplete at a measurable rate, and a model trained on both inherits that incompleteness as a systematic. We audit AION-1, a 39-modality transformer trained on more than 200 million objects, using causal interventions on its inputs. Holding the image tokens byte-identical and editing only the survey segmentation map changes every quantity the model reports -- flux, size, ellipticity, redshift -- by 110-4400 times a matched placebo. The mechanism is detection gating, presence at the field centre (r = 0.47), not the light the mask encloses (r = 0.30); across 322 real blends the model ignores how the pipeline partitioned the light (R = -0.006). Nor is the preference specific to that channel: contradicted catalogue photometry leaves the model nine times worse than supplying no metadata at all. The Legacy Survey pipeline leaves 3.68% of targets with no segment covering their position. Propagating that rate, with a miss represented by the fields the pipeline actually returns, shifts tomographic mean redshifts by a median 0.71 times the LSST DESC requirement over 40 assignments and exceeds it in 12; observed positional errors take the worst bin to 8.3 times. Drawing the misses by their measured magnitude dependence rather than uniformly does not change it. Spectroscopy removes the effect, withholding the detection channel removes it at no measurable cost, and the effect grows with model scale. Two further limits lie in the tokeniser: its image codec resolves 28 effective states on source patches against 934 for the spectrum codec, and the redshift readout is quantisation-limited. Sparse dictionaries are unreliable causal handles: across 15, recovery spans 26-75% and moves up to 18 points on the seed alone.
Create a lesson
Related papers
MUSE: Benchmarking Large Vision-Language Models on Multi-Modal Understanding in Situated Education
Luyao Zhu, Xun Wei Yee, Wei Li et al.
Infinite-Parameter LLMs: Generating and Adapting Weights from Live Data
Jinli Hu, Ross M. Clarke, Yichuan Zhang et al.
Compositional Policy Violations: When Step-Level Compliance Fails In Agentic AI Workflows
Ashwini Kurady, Sri Sai Charith Grandhi, Rajesh Gupta et al.
CERA-MoA: Co-Evolving Routing Mechanisms with Continually Learning LLM Agents
Jiaxuan Jiang, Liyuan He, Zhixuan Fang
Version- and Scope-Aware Question Answering over Normative Documents: A Deployed System and an End-to-End Evaluation at Production Scale
Liuyin Wang, Shuaipeng Jin, Jiwei Shi et al.
Clueing up LLMs with Tool-Augmented Deductive Reasoning
Rebecca Ansell, Autumn Toney-Wails