| # NativeSpecZ-296M β Wavelength-Aware Scale-Up Experiment |
|
|
| A 296M-parameter unimodal foundation model for DESI spectra, trained from scratch with no AION pretrained weights. **This is the project's scale-up ablation** β it hits the spec's ~300M-parameter target and is competitive with AION-base on DESI in-distribution, but it does NOT beat AION on out-of-distribution data. The smaller **NativeSpecZ-FM-76M** is the recommended headline submission; this 296M model is documented here as the larger wavelength-aware scaling experiment. |
|
|
| ## What it is |
|
|
| - 296,269,116 parameters |
| - Conv-stem transformer: 20 layers, d_model=1024, conv_width=512, 16 heads, stem_stride=8 |
| - 8-channel raw-flux input including log-wavelength channels |
| - `[CLS]` + `[Z_MASK]` tokens β **Approach B**: z token always masked |
| - Bin-residual z head + pixel-level reconstruction head β **Approach A**: joint training |
| - Trained on 97,332 DESI spectra with **wavelength-grid jitter** and OOD-style augmentation (the "wavelength-aware" recipe designed to improve cross-instrument transfer) |
| - Mixed-span masking at 30% |
| - Resumed from an earlier 300M joint checkpoint, gentle fine-tune (3 epochs, lr 2e-6, 1500 steps) |
|
|
| ## Results (held-out, TTA) |
|
|
| | Dataset | n | MAE(z) | NMAD | Cat>0.01 | |
| |---|---:|---:|---:|---:| |
| | DESI held-out | 2500 | **0.0674** | 0.0048 | 0.213 | |
| | SDSS (real non-DESI) | 2000 | 0.314 | 0.278 | 0.692 | |
| | VIPERS (real non-DESI) | 2000 | 0.316 | 0.154 | 0.906 | |
|
|
| Clean-subset (ZWARN==0) MAE: DESI 0.457, SDSS 0.306 β same high-z clean-label weakness as the 76M. |
|
|
| Masked reconstruction (DESI, mask=0.25): rec MSE 0.066, line-region ~2Γ harder than continuum. |
|
|
| ## Three-way comparison |
|
|
| | Dataset | NativeSpecZ-296M | NativeSpecZ-76M (headline) | AION-base | |
| |---|---:|---:|---:| |
| | **DESI** | **0.067** | 0.069 | 0.074 | |
| | SDSS | 0.314 | 0.382 | **0.127** | |
| | VIPERS | 0.316 | **0.172** | 0.274 | |
|
|
| **Honest read of the scale-up:** |
| - On DESI in-distribution, the 296M is the best of the three (ties the 76M, beats AION). Scaling helped in-distribution. |
| - The wavelength-jitter training **homogenized** cross-instrument behavior β SDSS improved over the 76M (0.314 vs 0.382), but VIPERS regressed badly (0.316 vs the 76M's 0.172). |
| - Critically, the 296M **beats AION-base on no OOD dataset** (loses on both SDSS and VIPERS). The 76M, by contrast, beats AION on VIPERS by 37% β the strongest foundation-model claim in the project. |
| - Conclusion: bigger + wavelength-aware did not improve the foundation-model criterion. This model is a legitimate scale ablation, not the headline. |
|
|
| ## Why it's still worth submitting as an ablation |
|
|
| 1. It hits the spec's ~300M-parameter target (the 76M is below it). |
| 2. It is genuinely competitive with AION-base on DESI in-distribution (0.067 vs 0.074), from scratch, no AION weights. |
| 3. It demonstrates the scaling + wavelength-jitter direction was tried and honestly evaluated β the negative OOD result is a real finding, not a gap. |
|
|
| ## Folder structure |
|
|
| ``` |
| NativeSpecZ-296M_Submission/ |
| βββ README.md |
| βββ NativeSpecZ-296M.ipynb |
| βββ weights/ |
| β βββ best.pt (1.18 GB checkpoint) |
| β βββ training_args.json |
| β βββ best_metrics.json |
| β βββ final_metrics.json |
| βββ code/ |
| β βββ hybrid_redshift.py (model architecture; load with strict=False β see note) |
| β βββ data.py, metrics.py, model.py, plots.py |
| β βββ run_eval_296m.py (evaluation script, strict=False load) |
| βββ eval/ |
| β βββ desi_heldout/ sdss/ vipers/ (summary.json + NPZ predictions + multi_mask.json) |
| βββ plots/ |
| βββ scatter_redshift.png (predicted vs true z, DESI) |
| βββ scatter_3datasets.png (z scatter on DESI/SDSS/VIPERS) |
| βββ spectrum_reconstruction.png (4-panel masked-region reconstruction overlay) |
| βββ comparison_296m_76m_aion.png (MAE bars vs 76M and AION) |
| βββ multi_mask_reconstruction.png (rec MSE vs mask ratio, line vs continuum) |
| βββ stress_curve.png (instrument-shift robustness) |
| ``` |
|
|
| ## Note on loading |
|
|
| The current `hybrid_redshift.py` includes `z_rerank_head` and `z_calib_head` modules that were added AFTER this checkpoint was trained. Load with `strict=False`: |
|
|
| ```python |
| import torch, sys |
| sys.path.append("code") |
| from hybrid_redshift import HybridSpecZ |
| |
| ckpt = torch.load("weights/best.pt", map_location="cuda", weights_only=False) |
| a = ckpt["args"] |
| model = HybridSpecZ( |
| d_model=a["d_model"], conv_width=a["conv_width"], layers=a["layers"], |
| heads=a["heads"], dropout=a["dropout"], z_bins=a["z_bins"], |
| stem_stride=a["stem_stride"], rec_hidden_mult=a["rec_hidden_mult"], |
| rec_refine_width=a["rec_refine_width"], rec_refine_kernel=a["rec_refine_kernel"], |
| layerscale_init=a["layerscale_init"], prediction_mode=a["prediction_mode"], |
| bin_temperature=a["bin_temperature"], residual_scale=a["residual_scale"], |
| candidate_topk=a["candidate_topk"], |
| ).cuda() |
| model.load_state_dict(ckpt["model"], strict=False) # rerank/calib heads unused in bin_residual mode |
| model.eval() |
| ``` |
|
|
| The `z_rerank_head` and `z_calib_head` are not used in the `bin_residual` prediction path β they were exploratory and left in the code. The bin-residual z prediction and the reconstruction head are fully loaded. |
|
|
| ## Hugging Face |
|
|
| `ManmohanSharma/NativeSpecZ-296M` on Hugging Face. |
|
|
| ## Submission checklist |
|
|
| - [x] Approach A β joint z-head training |
| - [x] Approach B β always-masked z token |
| - [x] ~300M parameter target β **296M, meets the spec target** |
| - [x] (a) Redshift prediction β MAE 0.067 on held-out DESI (beats AION 0.074) |
| - [x] (b) Masked reconstruction β rec MSE 0.066 at mask=0.25 |
| - [x] Unimodal DESI + z only, no imaging |
| - [x] No AION pretrained weights |
| - [x] Cross-instrument tested on SDSS + VIPERS |
| - [β ] Does NOT beat AION-base on any OOD dataset (the 76M does, on VIPERS) β this is why the 76M is the headline |
| - [β ] Clean-subset MAE 0.46 (DESI) β high-z clean-label weakness shared with the 76M |
|
|