A survey detection channel overrides the pixels in an astronomical foundation model, and biases tomographic mean redshifts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 44 of its 92 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2026.
Builds on
44 of 92 references.
References · 44
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2021Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learnerscited by 7,403
- 2017Neural Discrete Representation Learningcited by 4,712
- 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,579
- 2020Taming Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesiscited by 3,253
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
- 2022MaskGIT: Masked Generative Image Transformercited by 1,099
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 971
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 876
32 more
- 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 716
- 2023ConvNeXt V2: Co-designing and Scaling ConvNets with Masked Autoencoderscited by 712
- 2021Vector-quantized Image Modeling with Improved VQGANcited by 658
- 2023Language Model Beats Diffusion -- Tokenizer is Key to Visual Generationcited by 640
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 553
- 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 455
- 2023Finite Scalar Quantization: VQ-VAE Made Simplecited by 440
- 2024Sparse Feature Circuits: Discovering and Editing Interpretable Causal Graphs in Language Modelscited by 435
- 2023Towards Best Practices of Activation Patching in Language Models: Metrics and Methodscited by 359
- 2020Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biasescited by 344
- 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoderscited by 300
- 2023LEACE: Perfect linear concept erasure in closed formcited by 267
- 2024Transcoders Find Interpretable LLM Feature Circuitscited by 200
- 2020Causal Mediation Analysis for Interpreting Neural NLP: The Case of Gender Biascited by 191
- 2024BatchTopK Sparse Autoencoderscited by 130
- 20234M: Massively Multimodal Masked Modelingcited by 120
- 2023Multiple Physics Pretraining for Physical Surrogate Modelscited by 98
- 2023Straightening Out the Straight-Through Estimator: Overcoming Optimization Challenges in Vector Quantized Networkscited by 82
- 2024InterPLM: Discovering Interpretable Features in Protein Language Models via Sparse Autoencoderscited by 66
- 2025Interpreting CLIP with Hierarchical Sparse Autoencoderscited by 60
- 20244M-21: An Any-to-Any Vision Model for Tens of Tasks and Modalitiescited by 52
- 2021Galaxy Zoo DECaLS: Detailed Visual Morphology Measurements from Volunteers and Deep Learning for 314,000 Galaxiescited by 41
- 2025Walrus: A Cross-Domain Foundation Model for Continuum Dynamicscited by 36
- 2025Interpretable Machine Learning in Physics: A Reviewcited by 14
- 2024AstroPT: Scaling Large Observation Models for Astronomycited by 9
- 2024Scaling Laws for Galaxy Imagescited by 5
- 2026Sparse probes and murky physics: a case study of interpretability challenges in a foundation model for continuum dynamicscited by 3
- 2024Insights on Galaxy Evolution from Interpretable Sparse Feature Networkscited by 2
- 2025Universal Spectral Tokenization via Self-Supervised Panchromatic Representation Learningcited by 2
- 2025Re-envisioning Euclid Galaxy Morphology: Identifying and Interpreting Features with Sparse Autoencoderscited by 2
- 2026Sparse Autoencoders as a Steering Basis for Phase Synchronization in Graph-Based CFD Surrogatescited by 1
- 2026Mechanistic Interpretability and Causal Feature Steering of Neural Quantum States via Sparse Autoencoderscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.