File size: 204,049 Bytes
d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 e521ce8 d4fc574 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2480 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2512 2513 2514 2515 2516 2517 2518 2519 2520 2521 2522 2523 2524 2525 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 2531 2532 2533 2534 2535 2536 2537 2538 2539 2540 2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564 2565 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595 2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 2661 2662 2663 2664 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 2671 2672 2673 2674 2675 2676 2677 2678 2679 2680 2681 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 2687 2688 2689 2690 2691 2692 2693 2694 2695 2696 2697 2698 2699 2700 2701 2702 2703 2704 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2711 2712 2713 2714 2715 2716 2717 2718 2719 2720 2721 2722 2723 2724 2725 2726 2727 2728 2729 2730 2731 2732 2733 2734 2735 2736 2737 2738 2739 2740 2741 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 2753 2754 2755 2756 2757 2758 2759 2760 2761 2762 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 2779 2780 2781 2782 2783 2784 2785 2786 2787 2788 2789 2790 2791 2792 2793 2794 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 2804 2805 2806 2807 2808 2809 2810 2811 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819 2820 2821 2822 2823 2824 2825 2826 2827 2828 2829 2830 2831 2832 2833 2834 2835 2836 2837 2838 2839 2840 2841 2842 2843 2844 2845 2846 2847 2848 2849 2850 2851 2852 2853 2854 2855 2856 2857 2858 2859 2860 2861 2862 2863 2864 2865 2866 2867 2868 2869 2870 2871 2872 2873 2874 2875 2876 2877 2878 2879 2880 2881 2882 2883 2884 2885 2886 2887 2888 2889 2890 2891 2892 2893 2894 2895 2896 2897 2898 2899 2900 2901 2902 2903 2904 2905 2906 2907 2908 2909 2910 2911 2912 2913 2914 2915 2916 2917 2918 2919 2920 2921 2922 2923 2924 2925 2926 2927 2928 2929 2930 2931 2932 2933 2934 2935 2936 2937 2938 2939 2940 2941 2942 2943 2944 2945 2946 2947 2948 2949 2950 2951 2952 2953 2954 2955 2956 2957 2958 2959 2960 2961 2962 2963 2964 2965 2966 2967 2968 2969 2970 2971 2972 2973 2974 2975 2976 2977 2978 2979 2980 2981 2982 2983 2984 2985 2986 2987 2988 2989 2990 2991 2992 2993 2994 2995 2996 2997 2998 2999 3000 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3010 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3016 3017 3018 3019 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 3059 3060 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070 3071 3072 3073 3074 3075 3076 3077 3078 3079 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085 3086 3087 3088 3089 3090 3091 3092 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 3101 3102 3103 3104 3105 3106 3107 3108 3109 3110 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3118 3119 3120 3121 3122 3123 3124 3125 3126 3127 3128 3129 3130 3131 3132 3133 3134 3135 3136 3137 3138 3139 3140 3141 3142 3143 3144 3145 3146 3147 3148 3149 3150 3151 3152 3153 3154 3155 3156 3157 3158 3159 3160 3161 3162 3163 3164 3165 3166 3167 3168 3169 3170 3171 3172 3173 3174 3175 3176 3177 3178 3179 3180 3181 3182 3183 3184 3185 3186 3187 3188 3189 3190 3191 3192 3193 3194 3195 3196 3197 3198 3199 3200 3201 3202 3203 3204 3205 3206 3207 3208 3209 3210 3211 3212 3213 3214 3215 3216 3217 3218 3219 3220 3221 3222 3223 3224 3225 3226 3227 3228 3229 3230 3231 3232 3233 3234 3235 3236 3237 3238 3239 3240 3241 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 3251 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 3258 3259 3260 3261 3262 3263 3264 3265 3266 3267 3268 3269 3270 3271 3272 3273 3274 3275 3276 3277 3278 3279 3280 3281 3282 3283 3284 3285 3286 3287 3288 3289 3290 3291 3292 3293 3294 3295 3296 3297 3298 3299 3300 3301 3302 3303 3304 3305 3306 3307 3308 3309 3310 3311 3312 3313 3314 3315 3316 3317 3318 3319 3320 3321 3322 3323 3324 3325 3326 3327 3328 3329 3330 3331 3332 3333 3334 3335 3336 3337 3338 3339 3340 3341 3342 3343 3344 3345 3346 3347 3348 3349 3350 3351 3352 3353 3354 3355 3356 3357 3358 3359 3360 3361 3362 3363 3364 3365 3366 3367 3368 3369 3370 3371 3372 3373 3374 3375 3376 3377 3378 3379 3380 3381 3382 3383 3384 3385 3386 3387 3388 3389 3390 3391 3392 3393 3394 3395 3396 3397 3398 3399 3400 3401 3402 3403 3404 3405 3406 3407 3408 3409 3410 3411 3412 3413 3414 3415 3416 3417 3418 3419 3420 3421 3422 3423 3424 3425 3426 3427 3428 3429 3430 3431 3432 3433 3434 3435 3436 3437 3438 3439 3440 3441 3442 3443 3444 3445 3446 3447 3448 3449 3450 3451 3452 3453 3454 3455 3456 3457 3458 3459 3460 3461 3462 3463 3464 3465 3466 3467 3468 3469 3470 3471 3472 3473 3474 3475 3476 3477 3478 3479 3480 3481 3482 3483 3484 3485 3486 3487 3488 3489 3490 3491 3492 3493 3494 3495 3496 3497 3498 3499 3500 3501 3502 3503 3504 3505 3506 3507 3508 3509 3510 3511 3512 3513 3514 3515 3516 3517 3518 3519 3520 3521 3522 3523 3524 3525 3526 3527 3528 3529 3530 3531 3532 3533 3534 3535 3536 3537 3538 3539 3540 3541 3542 3543 3544 3545 3546 3547 3548 3549 3550 3551 3552 3553 3554 3555 3556 3557 3558 3559 3560 3561 3562 3563 3564 3565 3566 3567 3568 3569 3570 3571 3572 3573 3574 3575 3576 3577 3578 3579 3580 3581 3582 3583 3584 3585 3586 3587 3588 3589 3590 3591 3592 3593 3594 3595 3596 3597 3598 3599 3600 3601 3602 3603 3604 3605 3606 3607 3608 3609 3610 3611 3612 3613 3614 3615 3616 3617 3618 3619 3620 3621 3622 3623 3624 3625 3626 3627 3628 3629 3630 3631 3632 3633 3634 3635 3636 3637 3638 3639 3640 3641 3642 3643 3644 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 3653 3654 3655 3656 3657 3658 3659 3660 3661 3662 3663 3664 3665 3666 3667 3668 3669 3670 3671 3672 3673 3674 3675 3676 3677 3678 3679 3680 3681 3682 3683 3684 3685 3686 3687 3688 3689 3690 3691 3692 3693 3694 3695 3696 3697 3698 3699 3700 3701 3702 3703 3704 3705 3706 3707 3708 3709 3710 3711 3712 3713 3714 3715 3716 3717 3718 3719 3720 3721 3722 3723 3724 3725 3726 3727 3728 3729 3730 3731 3732 3733 3734 3735 3736 3737 3738 3739 3740 3741 3742 3743 3744 3745 3746 3747 3748 3749 3750 3751 3752 3753 3754 3755 3756 3757 3758 3759 3760 3761 3762 3763 3764 3765 3766 3767 3768 3769 3770 3771 3772 3773 3774 3775 3776 3777 3778 3779 3780 3781 3782 3783 3784 3785 3786 3787 3788 3789 3790 3791 3792 3793 3794 3795 3796 3797 3798 3799 3800 3801 3802 3803 3804 3805 3806 3807 3808 3809 3810 3811 3812 3813 3814 3815 3816 3817 3818 3819 3820 3821 3822 3823 3824 3825 3826 3827 3828 3829 3830 3831 3832 3833 3834 3835 3836 3837 3838 3839 3840 3841 3842 3843 3844 3845 3846 3847 3848 3849 3850 3851 3852 3853 3854 3855 3856 3857 3858 3859 3860 3861 3862 3863 3864 3865 3866 3867 3868 3869 3870 3871 3872 3873 3874 3875 3876 3877 3878 3879 3880 3881 3882 3883 3884 3885 3886 3887 3888 3889 3890 3891 3892 3893 3894 3895 3896 3897 3898 3899 3900 3901 3902 3903 3904 3905 3906 3907 3908 3909 3910 3911 3912 3913 3914 3915 3916 3917 3918 3919 3920 3921 3922 3923 3924 3925 3926 3927 3928 3929 3930 3931 3932 3933 3934 3935 3936 3937 3938 3939 3940 3941 3942 3943 3944 3945 3946 3947 3948 3949 3950 3951 3952 3953 3954 3955 3956 3957 3958 3959 3960 3961 3962 3963 3964 3965 3966 3967 3968 3969 3970 3971 3972 3973 3974 3975 3976 3977 3978 3979 3980 3981 3982 3983 3984 3985 3986 3987 3988 3989 3990 3991 3992 3993 3994 3995 3996 3997 3998 3999 4000 4001 4002 4003 4004 4005 4006 4007 4008 4009 4010 4011 4012 4013 4014 4015 4016 4017 4018 4019 4020 4021 4022 4023 4024 4025 4026 4027 4028 4029 4030 4031 4032 4033 4034 4035 4036 4037 4038 4039 4040 4041 4042 4043 4044 4045 4046 4047 4048 4049 4050 4051 4052 4053 4054 4055 4056 4057 4058 4059 4060 4061 4062 4063 4064 4065 4066 4067 4068 4069 4070 4071 4072 4073 4074 4075 4076 4077 4078 4079 4080 4081 4082 4083 4084 4085 4086 4087 4088 4089 4090 4091 4092 4093 4094 4095 4096 4097 4098 4099 4100 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 4106 4107 4108 4109 4110 4111 4112 4113 4114 4115 4116 4117 4118 4119 4120 4121 4122 4123 4124 4125 4126 4127 4128 4129 4130 4131 4132 4133 4134 4135 4136 4137 4138 4139 4140 4141 4142 4143 4144 4145 4146 4147 4148 4149 4150 4151 4152 4153 4154 4155 4156 4157 4158 4159 4160 4161 4162 4163 4164 4165 4166 4167 4168 4169 4170 4171 4172 4173 4174 4175 4176 4177 4178 4179 4180 4181 4182 4183 4184 4185 4186 4187 4188 4189 4190 4191 4192 4193 4194 4195 4196 4197 4198 4199 4200 4201 4202 4203 4204 4205 4206 4207 4208 4209 4210 4211 4212 4213 4214 4215 4216 4217 4218 4219 4220 4221 4222 4223 4224 4225 4226 4227 4228 4229 4230 4231 4232 4233 4234 4235 4236 4237 4238 4239 4240 4241 4242 4243 4244 4245 4246 4247 4248 4249 4250 4251 4252 4253 4254 4255 4256 4257 4258 4259 4260 4261 4262 4263 4264 4265 4266 4267 4268 4269 4270 4271 4272 4273 4274 4275 4276 4277 4278 4279 4280 4281 4282 4283 4284 4285 4286 4287 4288 4289 4290 4291 4292 4293 4294 4295 4296 4297 4298 4299 4300 4301 4302 4303 4304 4305 4306 4307 4308 4309 4310 4311 4312 4313 4314 4315 4316 4317 4318 4319 4320 4321 4322 4323 4324 4325 4326 4327 4328 4329 4330 4331 4332 4333 4334 4335 4336 4337 4338 4339 4340 4341 4342 4343 4344 4345 4346 4347 4348 4349 4350 4351 4352 4353 4354 4355 4356 4357 4358 4359 4360 4361 4362 4363 4364 4365 4366 4367 4368 4369 4370 4371 4372 4373 4374 4375 4376 4377 4378 4379 4380 4381 4382 4383 4384 4385 4386 4387 4388 4389 4390 4391 4392 4393 4394 4395 4396 4397 4398 4399 4400 4401 4402 4403 4404 4405 4406 4407 4408 4409 4410 4411 4412 4413 4414 4415 4416 4417 4418 4419 4420 4421 4422 4423 4424 4425 4426 4427 4428 4429 4430 4431 4432 4433 4434 4435 4436 4437 4438 4439 4440 4441 4442 4443 4444 4445 4446 4447 4448 4449 4450 4451 4452 4453 4454 4455 4456 4457 4458 4459 4460 4461 4462 4463 4464 4465 4466 4467 4468 4469 4470 4471 4472 4473 4474 4475 4476 4477 4478 4479 4480 4481 4482 4483 4484 4485 4486 4487 4488 4489 4490 4491 4492 4493 4494 4495 4496 4497 4498 4499 4500 4501 4502 4503 | [
{
"question_id": "Q0001",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.535.1844L",
"question": "How can one obtain accurate photometric redshift estimates for high-redshift galaxies using only flux measurements from different observational filters as input?",
"option_a": "MLP",
"option_b": "LSTM",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0002",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...977...19D",
"question": "How can the global 21-cm signal be reliably modeled from a specified set of cosmological and astrophysical parameters?",
"option_a": "Two-layer LSTM",
"option_b": "VAE",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0003",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...977...19D",
"question": "How can the global 21-cm signal be reliably modeled from a specified set of cosmological and astrophysical parameters?",
"option_a": "Two-layer LSTM",
"option_b": "Single MLP",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0004",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...977...19D",
"question": "How can the global 21-cm signal be reliably modeled from a specified set of cosmological and astrophysical parameters?",
"option_a": "Two-layer LSTM",
"option_b": "Multi-MLP + PCA + Decision Tree",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0005",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..242A",
"question": "How can the near-surface gravity field of an irregular, nonuniform small body be accurately reconstructed from sampled simulated gravity-field data?",
"option_a": "MLP",
"option_b": "Neural density field",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0006",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..242A",
"question": "How can the near-surface gravity field of an irregular, nonuniform small body be accurately reconstructed from sampled simulated gravity-field data?",
"option_a": "vanilla PINN",
"option_b": "Neural density field",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0007",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..242A",
"question": "How can the near-surface gravity field of an irregular, nonuniform small body be accurately reconstructed from sampled simulated gravity-field data?",
"option_a": "Transformer-PINN",
"option_b": "Neural density field",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0008",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..242A",
"question": "How can the near-surface gravity field of an irregular, nonuniform small body be accurately reconstructed from sampled simulated gravity-field data?",
"option_a": "Neural density field",
"option_b": "Self-adaptive PINN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0009",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..242A",
"question": "How can the near-surface gravity field of an irregular, nonuniform small body be accurately reconstructed from sampled simulated gravity-field data?",
"option_a": "Self-adaptive PINN",
"option_b": "MLP",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0010",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..242A",
"question": "How can the near-surface gravity field of an irregular, nonuniform small body be accurately reconstructed from sampled simulated gravity-field data?",
"option_a": "Self-adaptive PINN",
"option_b": "vanilla PINN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0011",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..242A",
"question": "How can the near-surface gravity field of an irregular, nonuniform small body be accurately reconstructed from sampled simulated gravity-field data?",
"option_a": "Self-adaptive PINN",
"option_b": "Transformer-PINN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0012",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..242A",
"question": "How can the near-surface gravity field of an irregular, nonuniform small body be accurately reconstructed from sampled simulated gravity-field data?",
"option_a": "MLP",
"option_b": "Transformer-PINN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0013",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..242A",
"question": "How can the near-surface gravity field of an irregular, nonuniform small body be accurately reconstructed from sampled simulated gravity-field data?",
"option_a": "Transformer-PINN",
"option_b": "vanilla PINN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0014",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..242A",
"question": "How can the near-surface gravity field of an irregular, nonuniform small body be accurately reconstructed from sampled simulated gravity-field data?",
"option_a": "vanilla PINN",
"option_b": "MLP",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0015",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...692A.132H",
"question": "How can we accurately and precisely measure time delays from simulated microlensed light curves of strongly lensed Type Ia supernovae?",
"option_a": "Random Forest",
"option_b": "LSTM + fully connected neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0016",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...692A..72C",
"question": "For identifying galaxy-scale strong lenses in multiband survey images, which CNN architecture gives higher recall with very few false positives?",
"option_a": "CNN",
"option_b": "ResNet",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0017",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...692A..72C",
"question": "For identifying galaxy-scale strong lenses in multiband survey images, which CNN architecture gives higher recall with very few false positives?",
"option_a": "Group-equivariant CNN",
"option_b": "CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0018",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...692A..72C",
"question": "How can we identify galaxy-scale strong gravitational lenses in multi-band survey images while maximizing recall at zero or very low contamination?",
"option_a": "Group-equivariant CNN",
"option_b": "ResNet",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0019",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...976..143T",
"question": "For quasar spectra, how can the unabsorbed continuum in the Lyα forest be more accurately predicted from only spectral information redward of Lyα?",
"option_a": "PCA",
"option_b": "CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0020",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...976..143T",
"question": "For quasar spectra, how can the unabsorbed continuum in the Lyα forest be more accurately predicted from only spectral information redward of Lyα?",
"option_a": "CNN",
"option_b": "Non-Negative Matrix Factorization",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0021",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...976...37W",
"question": "In cosmological hydrodynamical simulations, how can galaxy stellar masses be more accurately predicted from dark-matter subhalo properties and large-scale environment?",
"option_a": "Explainable Boosting Machines",
"option_b": "E(3)-invariant GNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0022",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...691A.338C",
"question": "For Solar System survey tracklets, how can interstellar objects be more reliably distinguished from other Solar System objects while minimizing false positives and false negatives?",
"option_a": "Neural Network",
"option_b": "Gradient Boosting Machines",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0023",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...691A.338C",
"question": "For Solar System survey tracklets, how can interstellar objects be more reliably distinguished from other Solar System objects while minimizing false positives and false negatives?",
"option_a": "Random Forest",
"option_b": "Neural Network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0024",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...691A.223V",
"question": "Using low-resolution optical spectra, how can hot subdwarf binaries be more accurately identified against single hot subdwarfs?",
"option_a": "CNN",
"option_b": "Self-Organizing Map",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0025",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...691A.223V",
"question": "Using optical photometry and low-resolution spectrophotometric observations, which approach more accurately identifies hot subdwarf binaries against single hot subdwarfs?",
"option_a": "weighted SVM",
"option_b": "CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0026",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...974..159J",
"question": "Using five-band galaxy images and photometry, how can photometric redshifts be estimated more reliably for weak-lensing cosmology?",
"option_a": "Bayesian CNN",
"option_b": "XGBoost",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0027",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...974..159J",
"question": "Using five-band galaxy images and photometry, how can photometric redshifts be estimated more reliably for weak-lensing cosmology?",
"option_a": "Bayesian CNN",
"option_b": "Bayesian MLP",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0028",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...974..159J",
"question": "Using five-band galaxy images and photometry, how can photometric redshifts be estimated more reliably for weak-lensing cosmology?",
"option_a": "Bayesian CNN",
"option_b": "MLP",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0029",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...974..159J",
"question": "Using five-band galaxy images and photometry, how can photometric redshifts be estimated more reliably for weak-lensing cosmology?",
"option_a": "SVM",
"option_b": "Bayesian CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0030",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...974..159J",
"question": "Using five-band galaxy images and photometry, how can photometric redshifts be estimated more reliably for weak-lensing cosmology?",
"option_a": "XGBoost",
"option_b": "CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0031",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...974..159J",
"question": "Using five-band galaxy images and photometry, how can photometric redshifts be estimated more reliably for weak-lensing cosmology?",
"option_a": "MLP",
"option_b": "CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0032",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...974..159J",
"question": "Using five-band galaxy images and photometry, how can photometric redshifts be estimated more reliably for weak-lensing cosmology?",
"option_a": "SVM",
"option_b": "CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0033",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...974...96S",
"question": "For astrometric candidate pairs, how can true astrometric binaries be distinguished from visual alignments with high discriminating power using proper motions, parallaxes, and angular and physical separations?",
"option_a": "Logistic regression",
"option_b": "Artificial neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0034",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...973..163Y",
"question": "For compact-binary phase-space trajectories learned from numerical simulations, how can orbital evolution be predicted more accurately and efficiently over longer prediction horizons?",
"option_a": "Temporal Convolutional Network",
"option_b": "LSTM",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0035",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...973..154H",
"question": "How can stellar evolutionary tracks and observables be emulated more accurately from grids of stellar evolution models?",
"option_a": "Conditional Normalizing Flows",
"option_b": "Nearest-Neighbor Interpolation",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0036",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...690A.224L",
"question": "How can QSO classifications based on broadband colors achieve higher precision in a joint star-galaxy-QSO classification task?",
"option_a": "hierarchical density-based clustering",
"option_b": "sharpened-dimensionality-reduction + k-nearest-neighbor classification",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0037",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24i5023F",
"question": "For stellar spectra represented as wavelet images, how can spectral types be classified more accurately?",
"option_a": "Vision Transformer",
"option_b": "feature-pyramid ConvNeXt-V2 CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0038",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24i5023F",
"question": "For stellar spectra represented as wavelet images, how can spectral types be classified more accurately?",
"option_a": "Random Forest",
"option_b": "feature-pyramid ConvNeXt-V2 CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0039",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24i5023F",
"question": "For stellar spectra represented as wavelet images, how can spectral types be classified more accurately?",
"option_a": "stochastic-gradient-descent linear classifier",
"option_b": "feature-pyramid ConvNeXt-V2 CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0040",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24i5022M",
"question": "For sunspot groups observed in white-light and magnetogram images, how can their magnetic classes be classified more reliably when edge dimming weakens image features?",
"option_a": "dual-stream ResNet50",
"option_b": "dual-stream ResNet50 with channel-and-spatial attention",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0041",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24i5022M",
"question": "For sunspot groups observed in white-light and magnetogram images, how can their magnetic classes be classified more reliably when edge dimming weakens image features?",
"option_a": "dual-stream ResNet50 with squeeze-and-excitation attention",
"option_b": "dual-stream ResNet50 with channel-and-spatial attention",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0042",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.533..525M",
"question": "Across combined real-and-simulated strong-lens test sets, which neural-network design gives more stable overall lens-classification performance?",
"option_a": "five-layer classical CNN",
"option_b": "ResNet-based CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0043",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.533..525M",
"question": "For strong-lens searches evaluated on real lens candidates and real non-lenses, which neural-network design gives a better precision-recall trade-off at the adopted survey-search threshold?",
"option_a": "ResNet-based CNN",
"option_b": "block-structured CNN with batch normalization",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0044",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..274....7M",
"question": "For low-to-high-quality galaxy-image super-resolution, which approach produces more visually realistic galaxy reconstructions?",
"option_a": "SRGAN",
"option_b": "EDSR",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0045",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..274....7M",
"question": "For low-to-high-quality galaxy-image super-resolution, which approach produces more visually realistic galaxy reconstructions?",
"option_a": "SRGAN",
"option_b": "RCAN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0046",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..274....7M",
"question": "For low-to-high-quality galaxy-image super-resolution, which approach produces more visually realistic galaxy reconstructions?",
"option_a": "SRGAN",
"option_b": "efficient nonlocal contrastive attention network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0047",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..274....7M",
"question": "For low-to-high-quality galaxy-image super-resolution, which approach better matches high-resolution reference images in pixel-level and structural fidelity?",
"option_a": "efficient nonlocal contrastive attention network",
"option_b": "SRGAN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0048",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...973...41Z",
"question": "For Bayesian inference of reionization parameters from pure-signal 3D 21 cm light-cone images, which summary-compression approach yields tighter posterior constraints?",
"option_a": "solid harmonic wavelet scattering transform + DELFI",
"option_b": "3D CNN + DELFI",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0049",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...973...41Z",
"question": "For Bayesian inference of reionization parameters from 3D 21 cm light-cone images, which summary-compression approach yields tighter posterior constraints?",
"option_a": "power spectrum + DELFI",
"option_b": "solid harmonic wavelet scattering transform + DELFI",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0050",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...972....7R",
"question": "For bright-transient survey candidates, which architecture better supports automated spectroscopic follow-up when source-level completeness and purity are prioritized?",
"option_a": "multi-modal CNN",
"option_b": "fully connected neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0051",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...972....7R",
"question": "For identifying bright extragalactic transients in survey alerts, which ML pipeline gives higher classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "CNN-MLP fusion of images with photometric and catalogue features",
"option_b": "CNN using images",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0052",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...972....7R",
"question": "For classifying individual bright-transient survey alert packets before source-level follow-up policies are applied, which unimodal architecture gives higher alert-level accuracy and ROC-AUC?",
"option_a": "fully connected neural network",
"option_b": "uni-modal CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0053",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...689A.181M",
"question": "For mock galaxy-cluster velocity-dispersion maps, which U-Net variant better recovers the radial ICL-fraction structure while reducing spurious small-scale ICL features?",
"option_a": "Attention U-Net",
"option_b": "U-Net",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0054",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...689A.166C",
"question": "For emission-line galaxy target selection across the tested photometric configurations, which classifier more consistently maintains higher target precision at high target recall?",
"option_a": "Self-Organizing Map",
"option_b": "MLP",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0055",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...689A.166C",
"question": "For emission-line galaxy target selection across the tested photometric configurations, which classifier more consistently maintains higher target precision at high target recall?",
"option_a": "Self-Organizing Map",
"option_b": "SVM",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0056",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...689A.166C",
"question": "For emission-line galaxy target selection across the tested photometric configurations, which classifier more consistently maintains higher target precision at high target recall?",
"option_a": "Self-Organizing Map",
"option_b": "Extra Trees Classifier",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0057",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...689A.166C",
"question": "For emission-line galaxy target selection across the tested photometric configurations, which classifier more consistently maintains higher target precision at high target recall?",
"option_a": "Random Forest",
"option_b": "Self-Organizing Map",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0058",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...689A.166C",
"question": "For emission-line galaxy target selection across the tested photometric configurations, which classifier more consistently maintains higher target precision at high target recall?",
"option_a": "AdaBoost",
"option_b": "MLP",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0059",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...689A.166C",
"question": "For emission-line galaxy target selection across the tested photometric configurations, which classifier more consistently maintains higher target precision at high target recall?",
"option_a": "SVM",
"option_b": "AdaBoost",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0060",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...689A.143G",
"question": "For faint companion spectra cross-correlated with multiple molecular templates, which classifier detects planets more sensitively at low false discovery rate when atmospheric characteristics are uncertain?",
"option_a": "1D CNN",
"option_b": "Perceptron",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0061",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.532.3322A",
"question": "For identifying multi-component radio sources, which ML approach gives higher classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "CNN using radio images",
"option_b": "CNN-ANN fusion of radio images and catalogue features",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0062",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.532.3322A",
"question": "For identifying multi-component radio sources, which ML approach gives higher classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "ANN using catalogue features",
"option_b": "CNN-ANN fusion of radio images and catalogue features",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0063",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..273...27S",
"question": "For reconstructing the cosmic distance ladder from Type Ia supernova apparent magnitudes with full covariance information, which method better predicts distances while preserving a smooth and monotonic redshift-distance relation?",
"option_a": "Support Vector Regression",
"option_b": "covariance-aware LSTM",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0064",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..273...27S",
"question": "For reconstructing the cosmic distance ladder from Type Ia supernova apparent magnitudes with full covariance information, which method better predicts distances while preserving a smooth and monotonic redshift-distance relation?",
"option_a": "MLP",
"option_b": "covariance-aware LSTM",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0065",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..273...27S",
"question": "For reconstructing the cosmic distance ladder from Type Ia supernova apparent magnitudes with full covariance information, which method better predicts distances while preserving a smooth and monotonic redshift-distance relation?",
"option_a": "kNN regression",
"option_b": "covariance-aware LSTM",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0066",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...970..120D",
"question": "For extracting sunspot components from heterogeneous historical sunspot drawings when labels are available from one station and other stations are unlabeled, which segmentation approach gives more accurate cross-station segmentation?",
"option_a": "Hybrid Task Cascade R-CNN",
"option_b": "semisupervised dynamic mutual training with boundary-guided segmentation",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0067",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...970..120D",
"question": "For extracting sunspot components from heterogeneous historical sunspot drawings when labels are available from one station and other stations are unlabeled, which segmentation approach gives more accurate cross-station segmentation?",
"option_a": "semisupervised dynamic mutual training with boundary-guided segmentation",
"option_b": "scale-aware attention Mask R-CNN with PointRend",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0068",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...970..120D",
"question": "For extracting sunspot components from heterogeneous historical sunspot drawings when labels are available from one station and other stations are unlabeled, which segmentation approach gives more accurate cross-station segmentation?",
"option_a": "semisupervised dynamic mutual training with boundary-guided segmentation",
"option_b": "dynamic mutual training with DeepLab-v3",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0069",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...688A.199P",
"question": "For compressing cosmic 21 cm lightcones for astrophysical parameter inference across the prior volume, which summary approach yields the tightest typical Fisher-forecast constraints?",
"option_a": "2D power spectrum + information-maximizing neural network",
"option_b": "RNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0070",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...688A.199P",
"question": "Among neural-network summaries of cosmic 21 cm lightcones, which approach gives tighter typical astrophysical parameter constraints across the prior volume?",
"option_a": "Information-maximizing neural network",
"option_b": "RNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0071",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.531.4363S",
"question": "For separating accreted from in-situ stars in Milky Way-like galaxies when a classifier trained on one cosmological simulation suite must generalize to another, which method is less sensitive to domain shift?",
"option_a": "MLP",
"option_b": "XGBoost",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0072",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..273....3A",
"question": "For simulated high-dynamic-range radio-interferometric imaging, how can images be reconstructed with higher SNR/logSNR while suppressing hallucinated structure?",
"option_a": "U-Net",
"option_b": "residual-to-residual DNN series",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0073",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..273....3A",
"question": "For simulated radio-interferometric imaging, which learned reconstruction approach better preserves image-domain data fidelity while maintaining substantially higher reconstruction quality?",
"option_a": "U-Net",
"option_b": "plug-and-play learned-denoiser reconstruction",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0074",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.531.1454K",
"question": "When assigning optical emission-line equivalent widths to mock galaxy spectra, which empirical mapping is less tied to assumptions from a separate stellar-population model while giving comparable or slightly better EW predictions?",
"option_a": "feed-forward neural network",
"option_b": "gradient-boosted decision trees",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0075",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.533.1976M",
"question": "For classifying 1D optical spectra into quasars, galaxies, stars, and BAL quasars, which neural-network architecture gives higher classification accuracy when trained on the same spectra?",
"option_a": "Transformer",
"option_b": "1D residual CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0076",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...687A.202W",
"question": "For estimating wavefront aberrations from non-modulated pyramid wavefront-sensor images in adaptive optics, which neural-network architecture gives lower wavefront-estimation error?",
"option_a": "global-context vision Transformer",
"option_b": "ConvNeXt CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0077",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...687A.202W",
"question": "For estimating wavefront aberrations from non-modulated pyramid wavefront-sensor images in adaptive optics, which neural-network architecture gives lower wavefront-estimation error?",
"option_a": "wavefront-sensing CNN",
"option_b": "global-context vision Transformer",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0078",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.528.5890P",
"question": "For estimating stellar surface gravity from stellar light curves, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "convolution-augmented Transformer",
"option_b": "ResNet CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0079",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.528.5890P",
"question": "For estimating stellar surface gravity from stellar light curves, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "convolution-augmented Transformer",
"option_b": "convolution-only network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0080",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.528.5890P",
"question": "For estimating stellar surface gravity from stellar light curves, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "convolution-augmented Transformer",
"option_b": "self-attention-only Transformer",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0081",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.528.5890P",
"question": "For estimating stellar surface gravity from stellar light curves, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "convolution-only network",
"option_b": "self-attention-only Transformer",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0082",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.528.5890P",
"question": "For estimating stellar surface gravity across the red-giant branch from stellar light-curve information, which machine-learning approach gives lower RMSE and fewer outlier predictions?",
"option_a": "Transformer",
"option_b": "k-nearest-neighbor regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0083",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....167..118R",
"question": "For compressing Solar System object feature vectors used in anomaly searches, which dimensionality-reduction method preserves the features more accurately?",
"option_a": "principal component analysis",
"option_b": "deep autoencoder",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0084",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....167..118R",
"question": "For compressing Solar System object feature vectors used in anomaly searches, which dimensionality-reduction method preserves the features more accurately?",
"option_a": "non-negative matrix factorization",
"option_b": "deep autoencoder",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0085",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..272...14H",
"question": "Within a large survey variable-source classification system, for identifying RR Lyrae ab variable stars from light-curve features, which supervised ML method gives higher precision and recall?",
"option_a": "XGBoost gradient-boosted decision trees",
"option_b": "convolutional/dense neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0086",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..272...14H",
"question": "Within a large survey variable-source classification system, for identifying Delta Scuti variable stars from light-curve features, which supervised ML method gives higher precision and recall?",
"option_a": "XGBoost gradient-boosted decision trees",
"option_b": "convolutional/dense neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0087",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..272...14H",
"question": "Within a large survey variable-source classification system, for identifying active galactic nuclei from light-curve features, which supervised ML method gives higher precision and recall?",
"option_a": "convolutional/dense neural network",
"option_b": "XGBoost gradient-boosted decision trees",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0088",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...681A..68E",
"question": "For identifying galaxy-galaxy strong-lensing systems in high-resolution space-like images when less prominent lensing features are included, which CNN architecture gives higher classification accuracy and AUC?",
"option_a": "residual CNN",
"option_b": "inception CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0089",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...692A.260R",
"question": "For AGN photometric-redshift estimation in wide-area survey data where host-galaxy and nuclear emission can be spatially mixed, which ML approach gives lower scatter and outlier fraction on an independent blind sample?",
"option_a": "image-based CNN ensemble",
"option_b": "fully connected neural network using catalog multi-aperture photometry",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0090",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..234L",
"question": "For identifying true stellar flares from flare-candidate profile features, which supervised classifier is more reliable?",
"option_a": "XGBoost gradient-boosted decision trees",
"option_b": "fully connected deep neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0091",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..234L",
"question": "Among tree-based classifiers for identifying true stellar flares from flare-candidate profile features, which method better suppresses false positives without losing flare recovery?",
"option_a": "XGBoost gradient-boosted decision trees",
"option_b": "Random Forest",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0092",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...690A.326L",
"question": "For identifying galaxy mergers in high-resolution galaxy images, which CNN-based consensus classifier gives a better purity-completeness balance on visually classified real-galaxy test sets?",
"option_a": "dual-CNN consensus classifier with a single decision cutoff",
"option_b": "dual-CNN consensus classifier with ambiguous-case rejection",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0093",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.532.1902R",
"question": "For mitigating imaging systematics in photometric galaxy-clustering measurements used to constrain local primordial non-Gaussianity, which data-driven regression treatment better passes residual-systematics tests?",
"option_a": "linear multivariate regression",
"option_b": "feedforward neural-network regression",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0094",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24d5025L",
"question": "For identifying cloudy-contaminated frames in light-curve preprocessing, when a classifier is trained on cloudy-frame data from one observing night and evaluated on frames from another observing night, which supervised classifier achieves higher classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "support-vector machine",
"option_b": "LightGBM",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0095",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...967..152A",
"question": "For predicting galaxy star formation rates from broad-band galaxy images, which ResNet50-based architecture achieves higher test-set prediction accuracy?",
"option_a": "sequential ResNet50 CNN chain",
"option_b": "standalone ResNet50 CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0096",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.527.1240H",
"question": "For inferring plane-of-sky magnetic-field orientation from spectroscopic velocity-channel maps under comparable molecular-cloud turbulence conditions, which CNN architecture gives lower median angular uncertainty?",
"option_a": "2D convolution-pooling CNN",
"option_b": "3D residual U-Net autoencoder",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0097",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...964..130J",
"question": "For photometric redshift estimation in cosmology, which machine-learning pipeline gives lower RMS error and fewer outlier predictions?",
"option_a": "Random Forest",
"option_b": "Bayesian neural network with uncertainty-based rejection",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0098",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...964..130J",
"question": "For photometric redshift estimation in cosmology, which machine-learning pipeline gives lower RMS error and fewer outlier predictions?",
"option_a": "standard neural network",
"option_b": "Bayesian neural network with uncertainty-based rejection",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0099",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...964..130J",
"question": "For photometric redshift estimation in cosmology, which machine-learning pipeline gives lower RMS error and fewer outlier predictions?",
"option_a": "XGBoost",
"option_b": "Bayesian neural network with uncertainty-based rejection",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0100",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...686A.144B",
"question": "For filtering radio single-pulse candidates in magnetar observations before applying source-specific RFI rejection, which neural-network classification strategy gives the higher F-score?",
"option_a": "single neural-network classifier",
"option_b": "three-network voting ensemble",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0101",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.527.3381D",
"question": "For predicting baryonic galaxy properties from dark-matter halo properties in cosmological simulations, which neural-network approach gives better predictive accuracy while more faithfully reproducing the target distribution?",
"option_a": "physics-informed neural network with KLD distribution loss",
"option_b": "MSE-only multilayer perceptron",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0102",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.527.3381D",
"question": "For physics-informed baryon inpainting from dark-matter halo properties, which loss design better improves prediction accuracy and scatter recovery?",
"option_a": "SHMR-constrained PINN",
"option_b": "PINN with KLD distribution loss",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0103",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...690A.236D",
"question": "For emulating halo catalogues from gridded dark-matter density fields, which neural halo-bias emulator better matches N-body halo clustering statistics?",
"option_a": "local-density mixture-density network",
"option_b": "non-local symmetric-convolution mixture-density network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0104",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...681A...3G",
"question": "For parameterizing physically consistent exoplanet atmospheric pressure-temperature profiles, which data-driven representation gives lower test-set reconstruction error?",
"option_a": "PCA linear-basis parameterization",
"option_b": "neural latent-variable decoder",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0105",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...683A..90Z",
"question": "For automatic detection and classification of type II and III solar radio bursts in dynamic spectra, which object-detection network more reliably localizes burst events while maintaining precision and recall?",
"option_a": "YOLOv7 object detector",
"option_b": "Faster R-CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0106",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...681A..86M",
"question": "For the multi-output observables step in stellar-evolution track emulation, which supervised regressor more accurately predicts luminosity, effective temperature, and surface gravity?",
"option_a": "random forest regressor",
"option_b": "feedforward neural network regressor",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0107",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...681A..86M",
"question": "For the multi-output observables step in stellar-evolution track emulation, which supervised regressor more accurately predicts luminosity, effective temperature, and surface gravity?",
"option_a": "feedforward neural network regressor",
"option_b": "k-nearest-neighbor regressor",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0108",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...975..297W",
"question": "When combining mock strong-lens images to constrain the number density of low-mass dark-matter subhalos, which approach gives tighter constraints with comparable computing resources?",
"option_a": "sequential neural posterior estimation",
"option_b": "non-sequential neural posterior estimation",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0109",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...691A.106M",
"question": "Which ML approach more accurately classifies variable stars from their light curves?",
"option_a": "CNN + Random Forest two-stage classifier",
"option_b": "CNN classifier",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0110",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..191K",
"question": "For identifying ring galaxies in mock galaxy images, which CNN architecture better balances completeness and purity?",
"option_a": "ResNet-101",
"option_b": "Inception-ResNet-V2",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0111",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..191K",
"question": "When adapting a simulation-pretrained ring-galaxy classifier to a limited sample of real images, which fine-tuning strategy gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "output-layer-only fine-tuning",
"option_b": "upper-block and output-layer fine-tuning",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0112",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168..191K",
"question": "With only a limited labeled sample of real galaxy images, which CNN training strategy more accurately distinguishes ring from non-ring galaxies?",
"option_a": "partial fine-tuning of a simulation-pretrained CNN",
"option_b": "training the CNN from scratch",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0113",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...691A.221D",
"question": "For classifying survey sources as stars, galaxies, or quasars, which supervised ML approach gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "random forest",
"option_b": "dropout Bayesian neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0114",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...691A.221D",
"question": "For classifying survey sources as stars, galaxies, or quasars, which supervised ML approach gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "dropout Bayesian neural network",
"option_b": "XGBoost gradient-boosted trees",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0115",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...686A.209B",
"question": "For repeated predictions of the linear matter power spectrum from cosmological parameters, which ML emulator is faster to evaluate?",
"option_a": "neural-network emulator",
"option_b": "genetic-programming symbolic-regression emulator",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0116",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..272....4Z",
"question": "For identifying gamma-ray bursts in gamma-ray detector count maps, which CNN architecture gives more accurate predictions?",
"option_a": "plain CNN",
"option_b": "residual CNN with spatial-and-channel attention",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0117",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...683A.185T",
"question": "Given the parameters of a synchrotron self-Compton emission model, which machine-learning method more accurately predicts a blazar's spectral energy distribution?",
"option_a": "gated recurrent unit network",
"option_b": "feed-forward neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0118",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...683A.185T",
"question": "Given the parameters of a synchrotron self-Compton emission model, which machine-learning method more accurately predicts a blazar's spectral energy distribution?",
"option_a": "feed-forward neural network",
"option_b": "long short-term memory network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0119",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...683A.185T",
"question": "Given the parameters of a synchrotron self-Compton emission model, which machine-learning method better preserves the overall shape of the predicted blazar spectral energy distribution?",
"option_a": "long short-term memory network",
"option_b": "gated recurrent unit network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0120",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.533.2547F",
"question": "For identifying galaxy mergers near coalescence in realistic mock optical images, which ML approach recovers more true mergers while maintaining comparable sample purity?",
"option_a": "hybrid CNN-Vision Transformer ensemble",
"option_b": "single CNN classifier",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0121",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.533.2547F",
"question": "For identifying galaxy mergers in realistic mock optical images, which ML approach produces a less contaminated candidate sample?",
"option_a": "majority-vote ensemble of CNN and Vision Transformer models",
"option_b": "full-consensus ensemble of CNN and Vision Transformer models",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0122",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.531.4203B",
"question": "For a fixed photometric-survey configuration, which ML approach predicts tomographic angular two-point statistics more quickly?",
"option_a": "matter-power-spectrum neural-network emulator + numerical angular projection",
"option_b": "direct neural-network emulator of angular statistics",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0123",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.527..651T",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from broadband photometric observations, which machine-learning pipeline yields lower robust scatter and fewer catastrophic estimates?",
"option_a": "magnitude-and-color k-nearest-neighbor regression",
"option_b": "image-based convolutional neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0124",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.527..651T",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from multiband images when spectroscopic redshifts are available for relatively few high-redshift training galaxies, which CNN training strategy yields lower prediction scatter?",
"option_a": "redshift regression alone",
"option_b": "joint redshift-bin classification and regression",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0125",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...683A..26A",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from multiband images, which CNN architecture yields more precise estimates?",
"option_a": "multi-stream CNN",
"option_b": "single-stream CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0126",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...683A..26A",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from optical and near-infrared images, which CNN approach yields more precise estimates?",
"option_a": "CNN classification over redshift intervals",
"option_b": "direct CNN redshift regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0127",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.527..739R",
"question": "For estimating warm-dark-matter particle masses from cosmological simulations, which neural-network pipeline gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "CNN using matter-density images",
"option_b": "fully connected neural network using matter power spectra",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0128",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...965..104F",
"question": "Which machine-learning method more accurately reconstructs simulated multiband quasar light curves with sparse sampling?",
"option_a": "multioutput Gaussian process regression",
"option_b": "neural stochastic differential-equation model",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0129",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...965..101C",
"question": "Which machine-learning pipeline more accurately predicts galaxy stellar mass, gas mass, and stellar metallicity from dark-matter halo properties?",
"option_a": "multilayer perceptron using individual halo properties",
"option_b": "graph neural network using complete merger trees",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0130",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...687A..45P",
"question": "For estimating the time before or after a galaxy merger from simulated multiband images, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "50-layer residual CNN",
"option_b": "six-layer CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0131",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...687A..45P",
"question": "For estimating the time before or after a galaxy merger from simulated multiband images, which complete ML pipeline gives lower overall prediction error?",
"option_a": "u, g, r, and i-band CNN regression",
"option_b": "u, g, and r-band ImageNet-pretrained Swin Transformer regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0132",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...683A.145F",
"question": "For identifying the edges of galaxies in deep images, which ML approach more closely matches astronomers' measurements?",
"option_a": "majority-vote U-Net ensemble",
"option_b": "single U-Net",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0133",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....167..264L",
"question": "For recovering strong-lens candidates from noisy multiband images, which ML pipeline reaches higher completeness?",
"option_a": "Swin Transformer detector without neural image restoration",
"option_b": "neural image-restoration model + Swin Transformer detector",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0134",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..271...54F",
"question": "For estimating quasar photometric redshifts, which ML approach gives more precise estimates with fewer catastrophic failures?",
"option_a": "XGBoost regression",
"option_b": "XGBoost/TabNet/FT-Transformer ensemble",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0135",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.530.1129P",
"question": "For assigning binary-black-hole mergers to galaxies in cosmological simulations, which neural-network formulation more faithfully reproduces the merger-count distribution across galaxies?",
"option_a": "likelihood-trained distribution-output neural network",
"option_b": "MSE-trained point-output neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0136",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.531.1534C",
"question": "Which ML pipeline more accurately distinguishes clustering dark energy from a cosmological constant in simulated matter structure?",
"option_a": "3D density-field CNN pipeline",
"option_b": "power-spectrum random-forest pipeline",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0137",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.531.1534C",
"question": "For clustering dark-energy models away from the cosmological-constant limit, which ML pipeline more accurately distinguishes different sound speeds when matter clustering is sampled over large scales?",
"option_a": "3D density-field CNN pipeline",
"option_b": "power-spectrum random-forest pipeline",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0138",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...976..200M",
"question": "For inferring disk and planet properties from simulated two-dimensional disk maps, which ML pipeline recovers the parameters more accurately?",
"option_a": "direct CNN parameter regression",
"option_b": "neural-operator forward modeling with evolutionary parameter search",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0139",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...691A.218S",
"question": "For estimating effective temperature from low-resolution spectra of late-F to early-K stars, which ML method gives lower mean-squared prediction error?",
"option_a": "multilayer perceptron",
"option_b": "one-dimensional convolutional neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0140",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...691A.218S",
"question": "For estimating effective temperature from low-resolution spectra of late-F to early-K stars, which ML method gives lower mean-squared prediction error?",
"option_a": "one-dimensional convolutional neural network",
"option_b": "Random Forest regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0141",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...691A.218S",
"question": "For estimating effective temperature from low-resolution spectra of late-F to early-K stars, which ML method gives lower mean-squared prediction error?",
"option_a": "one-dimensional convolutional neural network",
"option_b": "k-nearest-neighbor regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0142",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...977..223L",
"question": "For estimating black hole mass, accretion rate, and accretion-disk inclination from simulated multiband AGN light curves, which neural-network architecture yields smaller parameter uncertainties?",
"option_a": "CNN",
"option_b": "LSTM",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0143",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...977..223L",
"question": "For estimating black hole mass, accretion rate, and accretion-disk inclination from simulated multiband AGN light curves, which neural inference pipeline yields smaller parameter uncertainties?",
"option_a": "LSTM followed by a normalizing-flow estimator",
"option_b": "normalizing-flow estimator applied directly to the light curves",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0144",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...684A.203B",
"question": "For emulating the time evolution of non-equilibrium interstellar-medium chemistry across varying initial conditions, which neural method gives more accurate gas-temperature and chemical-abundance predictions?",
"option_a": "physics-informed neural network",
"option_b": "branch-trunk neural operator",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0145",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...689A.274E",
"question": "For predicting detailed galaxy morphology from galaxy images, which CNN training strategy more accurately reproduces visual morphology classifications?",
"option_a": "transfer-learned CNN",
"option_b": "CNN trained from scratch",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0146",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.530.2012T",
"question": "For estimating galaxy photometric redshifts from multi-band fluxes and uncertainties, which neural-network architecture gives more precise estimates?",
"option_a": "one-dimensional convolutional neural network",
"option_b": "fully connected neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0147",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.530.2012T",
"question": "When only a small spectroscopic training sample is available, which CNN training strategy gives more precise photometric-redshift estimates?",
"option_a": "CNN trained from scratch on the spectroscopic sample",
"option_b": "simulation-pretrained CNN with spectroscopic fine-tuning",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0148",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.530.2012T",
"question": "For obtaining well-calibrated photometric-redshift probability distributions, which neural-network approach performs better?",
"option_a": "single convolutional neural network",
"option_b": "ensemble of independently trained convolutional neural networks",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0149",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..274...29C",
"question": "For distinguishing variable-star classes and transient types from their light curves, which CNN pipeline gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "CNN combining raw light curves with periodogram-guided phase-folded light curves",
"option_b": "CNN using periodogram-guided phase-folded light curves alone",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0150",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..274...29C",
"question": "For distinguishing variable-star classes from their light curves, which CNN pipeline gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "CNN with learned frequency-window selection and phase folding",
"option_b": "CNN with learned time-window selection",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0151",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..274...29C",
"question": "For distinguishing variable-star classes directly from their light curves, which CNN architecture is more accurate?",
"option_a": "CNN without learned time-window selection",
"option_b": "CNN with learned time-window selection",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0152",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.530...20A",
"question": "For identifying galaxy-cluster mergers from idealized Compton-y and X-ray maps, which CNN pipeline detects a larger fraction of true mergers?",
"option_a": "single-branch CNN using Compton-y maps",
"option_b": "two-branch CNN combining Compton-y and X-ray maps",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0153",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.530...20A",
"question": "For identifying galaxy-cluster mergers from idealized Compton-y and X-ray maps, which CNN pipeline detects a larger fraction of true mergers?",
"option_a": "two-branch CNN combining Compton-y and X-ray maps",
"option_b": "single-branch CNN using X-ray maps",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0154",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...975...38L",
"question": "How can cosmological parameters be more precisely constrained from the sky positions, redshifts, and stellar masses of galaxies in an observed redshift survey?",
"option_a": "cross-domain representation-alignment PointNet",
"option_b": "standard supervised PointNet",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0155",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.527.2585L",
"question": "How can a Be star's inclination angle be accurately inferred from a single observed Halpha emission-line profile?",
"option_a": "feed-forward neural-network regression",
"option_b": "feed-forward neural-network classification over inclination bins",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0156",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....168...38H",
"question": "For modeling the completeness of two-band stellar photometry from artificial-star tests, which machine-learning method is more accurate?",
"option_a": "multilayer perceptron",
"option_b": "logistic regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0157",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...683A.105D",
"question": "For detecting faint point sources in simulated radio-interferometric observations, which ML pipeline achieves higher completeness?",
"option_a": "dirty-image conditional denoising diffusion pipeline",
"option_b": "visibility-domain fully connected network with autoencoder refinement",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0158",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.534..385W",
"question": "For detecting tracked targets in non-sidereal astronomical image sequences, which ML pipeline recovers more true targets with fewer false detections?",
"option_a": "image-registration and K-means classification with track association",
"option_b": "fully connected neural-network classification with track association",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0159",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.529.1654T",
"question": "For inferring accretion-flow parameters from black-hole X-ray binary spectra, which neural-network training strategy produces more accurate spectral fits?",
"option_a": "joint parameter-and-reconstruction learning",
"option_b": "parameter-only supervised learning",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0160",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.529.1654T",
"question": "When training on simulated black-hole X-ray binary spectra, which learning strategy produces more accurate spectral fits?",
"option_a": "reconstruction-only learning",
"option_b": "parameter-only supervised learning",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0161",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.529.1654T",
"question": "When training on simulated black-hole X-ray binary spectra, which learning strategy produces more accurate spectral fits?",
"option_a": "reconstruction-only learning",
"option_b": "joint parameter-and-reconstruction learning",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0162",
"paper_id": "2024A&A...682A...4T",
"question": "For separating low-surface-brightness galaxies from image artifacts, which Transformer architecture yields lower contamination while retaining similar completeness?",
"option_a": "self-attention-only vision Transformer ensemble",
"option_b": "convolution-augmented Transformer ensemble",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0163",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....167...73S",
"question": "For estimating stellar distances from spectroscopic measurements, which neural-network pipeline gives more consistent distances for stars in the same cluster?",
"option_a": "compact dense network using derived stellar parameters and abundances",
"option_b": "Bayesian convolutional network using full spectra",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0164",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.52711559N",
"question": "For estimating missing stellar line-of-sight velocities from astrometric measurements, which neural-network approach yields narrower prediction intervals with a lower calibration error?",
"option_a": "deterministic feed-forward neural network",
"option_b": "Bayesian neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0165",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.528...82K",
"question": "For classifying spiral and elliptical galaxies when the training labels are generated by unsupervised clustering, which ML pipeline gives higher and more balanced accuracy on independent samples?",
"option_a": "agglomerative-clustering labeling pipeline + CNN",
"option_b": "self-organizing-map labeling pipeline + CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0166",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.528...82K",
"question": "For classifying spiral and elliptical galaxies when the training labels are generated by unsupervised clustering, which ML pipeline gives higher and more balanced accuracy on independent samples?",
"option_a": "self-organizing-map labeling pipeline + CNN",
"option_b": "spectral-clustering labeling pipeline + CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0167",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....167...29W",
"question": "For classifying galaxy morphology from optical images, which CNN architecture gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "deformable-convolution residual CNN with layer attention",
"option_b": "standard residual CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0168",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....167..260W",
"question": "For classifying spectra of stars, galaxies, and quasars, which CNN architecture gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "ConvNeXt CNN",
"option_b": "multiscale partial-convolution CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0169",
"paper_id": "2024AJ....167..260W",
"question": "For classifying stellar subclasses from spectra, which convolutional design gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "multiscale large-kernel convolution",
"option_b": "small-kernel convolution",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0170",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...967..155L",
"question": "For identifying pulsar candidates with limited labeled data, which pseudolabeling strategy gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "confidence-weighted pseudolabeling with a validation-adjusted threshold",
"option_b": "fixed-threshold pseudolabeling",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0171",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...967..155L",
"question": "For identifying pulsar candidates with limited labeled data, which semisupervised pipeline gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "semi-supervised generative adversarial network",
"option_b": "confidence-weighted pseudolabeling WideResNet",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0172",
"paper_id": "2024ApJ...970..168W",
"question": "For estimating photospheric magnetic flux density from Stokes observations of strong-field regions, which neural-network training strategy gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "mean-squared-error regression",
"option_b": "classification-based regression",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0173",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..271....9D",
"question": "For increasing the spatial resolution of solar magnetograms, which deep-learning architecture better preserves magnetic-field structure?",
"option_a": "multibranch residual-dense CNN",
"option_b": "generative adversarial network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0174",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..271....9D",
"question": "For increasing the spatial resolution of solar magnetograms at similar reconstruction accuracy, which CNN architecture requires less computation?",
"option_a": "fixed-complexity residual-dense CNN",
"option_b": "region-routed multibranch residual-dense CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0175",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..271...31Z",
"question": "For predicting when a coronal mass ejection will reach Earth from coronagraph images, which CNN architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "VGG CNN",
"option_b": "ResNet-18",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0176",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..271...31Z",
"question": "For predicting when a coronal mass ejection will reach Earth, which ML pipeline gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "attention-fusion neural network using physical parameters and coronagraph images",
"option_b": "support-vector regression using physical parameters",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0177",
"paper_id": "2024ApJS..271...46M",
"question": "For increasing the spatial resolution of solar magnetograms while preserving strong magnetic fields and magnetic-flux balance, which CNN training objective is more effective?",
"option_a": "mean-squared-error loss with gradient, field-distribution, and structural-similarity penalties",
"option_b": "mean-squared-error loss alone",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0178",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.527.1163W",
"question": "For classifying galaxies by emission-line activity from their spectra, which ML method gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "one-dimensional convolutional neural network",
"option_b": "random forest",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0179",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.527.9930Z",
"question": "For identifying stars with Jupiter-like planets from high-resolution spectra, which ML pipeline gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "stacked ensemble of convolutional neural networks",
"option_b": "stacked random-forest ensemble",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0180",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.528..873S",
"question": "For detecting low-surface-brightness galaxies in images, which object-detection architecture gives a better balance of completeness and purity?",
"option_a": "coordinate-attention CNN detector",
"option_b": "YOLOv4 CNN detector",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0181",
"paper_id": "2024MNRAS.528..873S",
"question": "For detecting low-surface-brightness galaxies with limited labeled images, which CNN training strategy gives higher completeness and purity?",
"option_a": "training the same CNN from random initialization",
"option_b": "transfer learning from a pretrained object-detection CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0182",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24d5020P",
"question": "For classifying galaxies as spiral or elliptical from infrared data, which ML pipeline gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "support-vector machine using infrared colors",
"option_b": "CNN using infrared galaxy images",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0183",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24d5020P",
"question": "For classifying galaxies as spiral or elliptical from infrared images, which CNN architecture gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "residual CNN",
"option_b": "CNN with channel and spatial attention",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0184",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24d5020P",
"question": "For classifying galaxies as spiral or elliptical, which CNN pipeline gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "stacked CNN combining infrared and optical images",
"option_b": "CNN using optical images",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0185",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24e5013L",
"question": "For detecting anomalous variations in stellar light curves, which GRU architecture gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "bidirectional GRU with attention",
"option_b": "GRU without attention",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0186",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24f5024B",
"question": "For estimating active-surface actuator adjustments from simulated radio-telescope reflector deformations, which CNN design gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "CNN with learnable panel-node weighting",
"option_b": "CNN without learnable panel-node weighting",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0187",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24i5015S",
"question": "For increasing the resolution of simulated telescope images, which ML pipeline gives more accurate reconstructions?",
"option_a": "cascaded-residual GAN trained with a fixed telescope PSF",
"option_b": "cascaded-residual GAN trained with a learnable telescope PSF",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0188",
"paper_id": "2024RAA....24j5010Z",
"question": "For extrapolating force-free coronal magnetic fields, which neural-network architecture converges more reliably?",
"option_a": "physics-informed neural network with a two-stage output layer",
"option_b": "physics-informed neural network with a single output layer",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0189",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...994...62C",
"question": "For estimating warm dark matter particle mass from simulated galaxy populations, which ML method gives more accurate estimates?",
"option_a": "permutation-invariant set network + normalizing flow",
"option_b": "graph neural network + normalizing flow",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0190",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...994...62C",
"question": "For estimating warm dark matter particle mass from simulated galaxy populations, which ML pipeline gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "graph neural network using individual subhalo properties + normalizing flow",
"option_b": "multilayer perceptron using population-level total-mass statistics + normalizing flow",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0191",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...981...52C",
"question": "For reconstructing mass distributions from simulated wide-field weak-lensing shear fields, which CNN pipeline produces more faithful convergence maps?",
"option_a": "parallel-multikernel CNN pipeline",
"option_b": "fixed-large-kernel CNN pipeline",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0192",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...981...52C",
"question": "For detecting low-mass galaxy clusters from simulated weak-lensing observations, which CNN pipeline achieves higher completeness?",
"option_a": "parallel-multikernel CNN pipeline",
"option_b": "fixed-large-kernel CNN pipeline",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0193",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...696A..77T",
"question": "For estimating spectral-model parameters from simulated X-ray spectra, which method gives lower prediction errors?",
"option_a": "gated recurrent neural network",
"option_b": "multilayer perceptron",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0194",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...696A..77T",
"question": "For estimating spectral-model parameters from simulated X-ray spectra, which method gives lower prediction errors?",
"option_a": "hybrid convolutional and dense neural network",
"option_b": "gated recurrent neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0195",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....169..201T",
"question": "For classifying asteroids from visible and near-infrared reflectance spectra, which ML method gives higher overall classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "convolutional network with multi-head self-attention",
"option_b": "Random Forest",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0196",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....169..201T",
"question": "For classifying asteroids from visible and near-infrared reflectance spectra, which neural-network architecture gives higher overall classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "ResNet-50 CNN",
"option_b": "convolutional network with multi-head self-attention",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0197",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....169..201T",
"question": "For estimating mineral spectra and mineral proportions from simulated S-type asteroid spectra, which neural-network architecture gives lower reconstruction errors?",
"option_a": "Hapke-informed convolutional encoder-decoder",
"option_b": "convolutional autoencoder with Transformer attention",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0198",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...702A.245T",
"question": "For recovering turnaround radii from the collective galaxy kinematics of simulated cluster samples grouped by similar dynamical scales, which machine-learning pipeline gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "CNN on two-dimensional velocity-dispersion maps",
"option_b": "XGBoost on radial velocity-dispersion profiles",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0199",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.544.2586N",
"question": "For reconstructing small-scale features of the early cosmic matter distribution from the present-day density field in simulations, which 3D CNN architecture is more accurate?",
"option_a": "single-scale 3D CNN",
"option_b": "dual-scale 3D CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0200",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...694A.161S",
"question": "For estimating a star's effective temperature from a single flare light curve, which regression method is more accurate?",
"option_a": "linear regression",
"option_b": "gradient-boosted decision trees",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0201",
"paper_id": "2025RAA....25d4008S",
"question": "For distinguishing transients from image-subtraction artifacts, which CNN approach gives more reliable classifications?",
"option_a": "DenseNet CNN",
"option_b": "ensemble of ResNet, DenseNet, and EfficientNet CNNs",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0202",
"paper_id": "2025RAA....25d4008S",
"question": "For distinguishing transients from image-subtraction artifacts, which CNN architecture produces a less contaminated candidate sample?",
"option_a": "EfficientNet CNN",
"option_b": "ResNet CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0203",
"paper_id": "2025RAA....25d4008S",
"question": "For distinguishing transients from image-subtraction artifacts, which CNN architecture achieves higher transient completeness?",
"option_a": "ResNet CNN",
"option_b": "EfficientNet CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0204",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..279...27H",
"question": "For forecasting large solar flares from a uniformly sampled X-ray flare time series, which ML approach better separates large from smaller events?",
"option_a": "bagging ensemble of LSTMs with moving-average decomposition",
"option_b": "single LSTM with moving-average decomposition",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0205",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..278....4W",
"question": "For locating and classifying solar radio bursts in radio spectrograms, which attention mechanism gives more accurate detections?",
"option_a": "deformable attention with a dynamic-convolution adapter",
"option_b": "standard deformable attention",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0206",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..278....4W",
"question": "For locating and classifying solar radio bursts in radio spectrograms, which Transformer detector variant achieves higher recall?",
"option_a": "Transformer detector trained with one-to-many auxiliary matching",
"option_b": "Transformer detector trained with one-to-one matching",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0207",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..278....4W",
"question": "For locating and classifying solar radio bursts in radio spectrograms, which object-detection pipeline gives more accurate detections while missing fewer bursts?",
"option_a": "dynamic-convolution Transformer detector with auxiliary matching",
"option_b": "convolution-Transformer single-shot detector",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0208",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.541.3269M",
"question": "For estimating weak local-type primordial non-Gaussianity from higher-resolution simulated full-sky cosmic microwave background maps, which method gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "graph-convolution CNN",
"option_b": "pixel-neighborhood convolution CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0209",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...995..136Z",
"question": "For estimating the stellar parameters of O stars from their light curves, which method is more accurate?",
"option_a": "one-dimensional convolutional neural network",
"option_b": "multilayer perceptron",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0210",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.542..426T",
"question": "For reconstructing simulated wide-field radio-interferometric observations, which ML pipeline produces more accurate images?",
"option_a": "residual U-Net series with planar-domain loss and final spherical projection",
"option_b": "residual U-Net series with spherical-domain loss and iterative spherical projection",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0211",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...697A.162L",
"question": "When inferring cosmological parameters from simulated weak-lensing maps, which CNN training strategy yields tighter constraints?",
"option_a": "CNN trained by mutual-information maximization",
"option_b": "CNN trained by mean-squared-error regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0212",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...697A.162L",
"question": "When constraining dark energy with simulated weak-lensing maps, which CNN training strategy yields tighter constraints?",
"option_a": "CNN trained by mean-absolute-error regression",
"option_b": "CNN trained by mutual-information maximization",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0213",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...697A.162L",
"question": "When inferring matter density and clustering amplitude from simulated weak-lensing maps, which CNN training strategy yields tighter constraints?",
"option_a": "CNN trained by mutual-information maximization",
"option_b": "CNN trained to fit a Gaussian posterior",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0214",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...985L...7J",
"question": "For recovering solar magnetic fields from noisy simulated spectropolarimetric time series, which neural-network pipeline gives more accurate inversions?",
"option_a": "joint spatiotemporal physics-informed neural network",
"option_b": "frame-by-frame physics-informed neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0215",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.538..133P",
"question": "For rejecting image-subtraction artifacts in transient searches, which CNN pipeline yields a cleaner candidate sample while retaining most transients?",
"option_a": "single-stage CNN artifact classifier",
"option_b": "source-morphology-routed CNN pipeline",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0216",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.537.3383T",
"question": "For modeling the velocity evolution of infalling cold clouds in hydrodynamic simulations, which neural-ODE design gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "neural ODE with a single network for cloud growth",
"option_b": "neural ODE with separate networks for cloud growth and drag",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0217",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.537.3383T",
"question": "For modeling the mass growth of infalling cold clouds in hydrodynamic simulations, which ML approach gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "symbolic-regression approximation of the neural ODE",
"option_b": "neural ODE",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0218",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....170...44E",
"question": "For estimating the mean lens-galaxy mass-profile slope from simulated images of strongly lensed quasars, which neural posterior-estimation method gives lower fractional error and tighter constraints?",
"option_a": "single-stage neural posterior estimation",
"option_b": "sequential neural posterior estimation",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0219",
"paper_id": "2025PhRvD.112b2003M",
"question": "For detecting short gravitational-wave transients in real detector data, which ML pipeline gives higher detection efficiency at a fixed false-alarm rate?",
"option_a": "recurrent-autoencoder detector with an auxiliary neural classifier",
"option_b": "recurrent-autoencoder detector alone",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0220",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...700A.129B",
"question": "For recovering galaxy flux and morphology from simulated blended images, which ML method is more accurate?",
"option_a": "variational autoencoder with a normalizing-flow prior and latent-space optimization",
"option_b": "feed-forward variational autoencoder",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0221",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...991..124E",
"question": "For estimating redshifts of nearby galaxies from broadband observations, which ML pipeline gives lower scatter and outlier rate?",
"option_a": "local linear regression on catalog photometry",
"option_b": "CNN on galaxy image cutouts",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0222",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...991..124E",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from broadband images, which neural-network pipeline gives lower scatter and outlier rate in its point estimates?",
"option_a": "image CNN followed by a monotonic neural calibration network",
"option_b": "image CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0223",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...693A..73G",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from simulated spectra, which approach produces fewer catastrophic redshift errors?",
"option_a": "redshift-only CNN",
"option_b": "CNN with spectral-line and galaxy-property auxiliary tasks",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0224",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...980..183W",
"question": "For estimating gas metallicity from optical galaxy images, which ML pipeline gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "CNN with PCA-compressed features",
"option_b": "sparsity-constrained CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0225",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.541.2815K",
"question": "For modeling the broadband flux distribution of contaminants in high-redshift quasar searches, which density-estimation method trains faster while giving comparable reconstructions?",
"option_a": "neural conditional Gaussian-mixture deconvolution",
"option_b": "binned Gaussian-mixture extreme deconvolution",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0226",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.543..691Z",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from spectra, which reconstruction approach achieves a higher redshift success rate?",
"option_a": "autoencoder-like spectral-basis network",
"option_b": "U-Net",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0227",
"paper_id": "2025A&C....5200963S",
"question": "For classifying galaxy morphology from images, which dimensionality-reduction pipeline gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "uniform manifold approximation and projection + logistic regression",
"option_b": "locally linear embedding + logistic regression",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0228",
"paper_id": "2025A&C....5200963S",
"question": "For distinguishing round, intermediate, and elongated galaxies from images, which dimensionality-reduction pipeline gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "principal component analysis + logistic regression",
"option_b": "locally linear embedding + logistic regression",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0229",
"paper_id": "2025A&C....5200963S",
"question": "For classifying galaxy morphology from images, which method gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "convolutional neural network",
"option_b": "multilayer perceptron",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0230",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...980..176Z",
"question": "For segmenting solar filaments in full-disk hydrogen-alpha images, which U-Net architecture recovers more filament structure and agrees better with the reference masks?",
"option_a": "classical U-Net with expanding channel width",
"option_b": "channel-attention U-Net with fixed channel width",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0231",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...980..176Z",
"question": "For segmenting solar filaments in full-disk hydrogen-alpha images, which channel-attention U-Net variant gives higher recall and better agreement with the reference masks?",
"option_a": "U-Net with cross-channel attention in the bottleneck",
"option_b": "U-Net with within-channel attention throughout",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0232",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...693A..42G",
"question": "For inferring exoplanet atmospheric properties from simulated spectra, which method trains faster while retaining comparable posterior accuracy?",
"option_a": "continuous normalizing flow trained by flow matching",
"option_b": "discrete normalizing flow trained by neural posterior estimation",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0233",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...693A..42G",
"question": "For inferring exoplanet atmospheric properties from simulated spectra, which method generates posterior samples faster?",
"option_a": "continuous normalizing flow trained by flow matching",
"option_b": "discrete normalizing flow trained by neural posterior estimation",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0234",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...704A.150A",
"question": "For identifying stars with unresolved companions from simulated astrometric fit statistics, which supervised classifier gives a better balance between completeness and purity?",
"option_a": "logistic regression",
"option_b": "multilayer perceptron",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0235",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...704A.150A",
"question": "For identifying stars with unresolved companions from simulated astrometric fit statistics, which supervised classifier gives a better balance between completeness and purity?",
"option_a": "multilayer perceptron",
"option_b": "shallow random forest",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0236",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...985..132C",
"question": "For estimating cosmological parameters from simulated dark-matter halo catalogs with halo masses and kinematics, which ML method gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "hierarchical point-cloud MLP",
"option_b": "XGBoost",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0237",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...985..132C",
"question": "For estimating the amplitude of matter fluctuations from simulated dark-matter halo positions, which ML pipeline gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "hierarchical point-cloud MLP",
"option_b": "two-point correlation function + multilayer perceptron",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0238",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...978...64M",
"question": "For estimating cosmological parameters from simulated dark-matter density fields, which ML pipeline yields tighter posterior constraints?",
"option_a": "diffusion model + Hamiltonian Monte Carlo",
"option_b": "power spectrum + normalizing flow",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0239",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.536.3123J",
"question": "For detecting stellar flares in light curves, which neural-network pipeline performs better?",
"option_a": "sliding-window convolutional network",
"option_b": "point-wise fully convolutional network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0240",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.536.3123J",
"question": "For identifying flare points in stellar light curves, which loss function performs better?",
"option_a": "standard Dice loss",
"option_b": "masked Dice loss",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0241",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...982...55L",
"question": "For predicting the distribution of gravitational-wave background spectra from simulated supermassive black-hole binary populations, which ML method is more accurate?",
"option_a": "conditional normalizing flow",
"option_b": "Gaussian process",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0242",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.536.1303J",
"question": "For constraining matter clustering and dark energy from weak-lensing observations, which neural-compression pipeline gives tighter posterior constraints?",
"option_a": "neural-network compression of power spectra alone",
"option_b": "convolutional neural-network compression of lensing maps combined with power-spectrum compression",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0243",
"paper_id": "2025PhRvD.111f3523P",
"question": "For constraining matter density and clustering from simulated weak-lensing measurements with observational noise, which dimensionality-reduction method gives tighter posterior constraints?",
"option_a": "neural-network compression trained to predict cosmological parameters",
"option_b": "canonical correlation analysis",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0244",
"paper_id": "2025PhRvD.111f3523P",
"question": "For constraining matter density and clustering from simulated weak-lensing second moments, which dimensionality-reduction method gives tighter posterior constraints?",
"option_a": "neural-network compression trained to predict cosmological parameters",
"option_b": "principal component analysis",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0245",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...694A.326M",
"question": "For estimating stellar temperature and surface gravity from observed medium-resolution spectra, which ML pipeline gives lower errors?",
"option_a": "multi-discriminator adversarial autoencoder + ANN",
"option_b": "standard autoencoder + ANN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0246",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...981L..24L",
"question": "For constraining cosmic curvature from baryon acoustic oscillation and sparsely sampled cosmic chronometer measurements, which reconstruction method yields tighter constraints?",
"option_a": "artificial neural network",
"option_b": "Gaussian process",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0247",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...992..152R",
"question": "For identifying binary black hole mergers from gravitational-wave alerts, which neural-network pipeline gives higher classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "multiclass MLP using alert properties",
"option_b": "one-vs-all CNNs using localization images",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0248",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...992..152R",
"question": "For classifying gravitational-wave alerts, which supervised method better retains its accuracy when moving from simulated mergers to real alerts?",
"option_a": "multilayer perceptron",
"option_b": "XGBoost",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0249",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....170...73F",
"question": "For separating planet candidates from false positives among Kepler transit detections, which CNN pipeline gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "CNN using phase-folded light curves alone",
"option_b": "CNN using light curves and diagnostic features",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0250",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...989...47L",
"question": "For inferring the amplitude of matter fluctuations from simulated dark-matter halo catalogs, which neural-network architecture is more accurate?",
"option_a": "topological neural network",
"option_b": "graph neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0251",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....170..263H",
"question": "For distinguishing self-interacting from cold dark matter in galaxy clusters using simulated maps without observational noise, which neural-network architecture achieves comparable classification accuracy with fewer trainable parameters?",
"option_a": "convolutional Kolmogorov-Arnold network",
"option_b": "Inception CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0252",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..278...54Y",
"question": "For reconstructing extended radio sources from radio-interferometric observations, which method gives lower reconstruction error?",
"option_a": "split-Bregman network with a fixed wavelet dictionary",
"option_b": "split-Bregman network with a learned deep dictionary",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0253",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...984..106N",
"question": "For identifying LINER regions in galaxy spectra after removing the emission lines, which method gives a higher detection rate?",
"option_a": "attention-based CNN classifier",
"option_b": "PCA + logistic regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0254",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...990...47P",
"question": "For finding strong gravitational lenses in observed images with models trained on simulated lenses, which unsupervised domain-adaptation method recovers more lenses at low false-positive rates?",
"option_a": "Wasserstein distance-guided domain adaptation",
"option_b": "adversarial discriminative domain adaptation",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0255",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...990...47P",
"question": "For finding strong gravitational lenses in observed images with models trained on simulated lenses, which ML pipeline recovers more lenses at low false-positive rates?",
"option_a": "residual CNN + Wasserstein domain adaptation",
"option_b": "equivariant CNN + Wasserstein domain adaptation",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0256",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..278...39Z",
"question": "For classifying galaxy morphology from observed images, which ML pipeline gives higher accuracy and recall?",
"option_a": "convolutional-autoencoder encoding + ensemble clustering",
"option_b": "ConvNeXt-Vision Transformer contrastive encoding + ensemble clustering",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0257",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..278...18Z",
"question": "For selecting nearby dwarf-galaxy candidates for spectroscopic follow-up using broadband photometry, which supervised method gives higher precision?",
"option_a": "multilayer perceptron",
"option_b": "XGBoost",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0258",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....169..282J",
"question": "For detecting fast-moving objects in astronomical images where stars and moving objects may appear either point-like or trailed, which method gives better overall detection performance?",
"option_a": "gated mixture of physics-informed object detectors",
"option_b": "single physics-informed object detector",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0259",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....169..282J",
"question": "For detecting fast-moving objects in astronomical images with bright sky backgrounds, which method maintains higher recall?",
"option_a": "physics-informed center-point object detector",
"option_b": "image-only center-point object detector",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0260",
"paper_id": "2025PhRvD.111l3519Z",
"question": "For emulating weak-lensing correlation functions over a broad range of cosmological parameters, which method gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "residual multilayer perceptron",
"option_b": "self-attention Transformer",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0261",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....170..255H",
"question": "For reconstructing multiband stellar photometry, which method gives lower reconstruction error?",
"option_a": "standard autoencoder",
"option_b": "LSTM autoencoder",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0262",
"paper_id": "2025PhRvD.112h3510B",
"question": "For detecting damped Lyman-alpha absorbers in simulated quasar spectra affected by broad absorption lines, which ML method is less susceptible to false detections?",
"option_a": "Gaussian-process model",
"option_b": "convolutional neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0263",
"paper_id": "2025PhRvD.111l3520S",
"question": "For emulating weak-lensing correlation functions over a broad range of cosmological parameters, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "hybrid residual-MLP/self-attention Transformer",
"option_b": "self-attention-only Transformer",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0264",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...699A..54S",
"question": "For detecting Ellerman bombs in H-alpha observations at reduced spatial resolution, which neural-network architecture gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "convolutional neural network",
"option_b": "fully connected neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0265",
"paper_id": "2025PASP..137c4507S",
"question": "For distinguishing hydrogen-rich from hydrogen-poor core-collapse supernovae in low-resolution spectra, which deep-learning approach achieves higher recall at a low false-positive rate?",
"option_a": "multiclass convolutional classifier",
"option_b": "parallel binary recurrent classifiers",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0266",
"paper_id": "2025PASP..137c4507S",
"question": "When high-quality low-resolution spectra are available, which neural-network pipeline more accurately distinguishes hydrogen-rich from hydrogen-poor core-collapse supernovae?",
"option_a": "bidirectional LSTM with additional light-curve branches",
"option_b": "bidirectional LSTM using spectra",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0267",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...694A.287B",
"question": "For emulating the matter distribution in cosmological N-body simulations, which ML pipeline gives lower density-field errors?",
"option_a": "direct neural displacement-field emulator",
"option_b": "neural reference-frame emulator with force corrections",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0268",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...993...33S",
"question": "For classifying radio-background models from cosmic-dawn 21 cm observations, which neural-network pipeline gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "single-layer sigmoid MLP on the global 21 cm signal",
"option_b": "three-layer ReLU MLP on the 21 cm power spectrum",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0269",
"paper_id": "2025A&C....52..965L",
"question": "For identifying spiral galaxies with at least four arms as one class, which transfer-learning pipeline is more accurate?",
"option_a": "frozen EfficientNetB0 CNN",
"option_b": "fully fine-tuned EfficientNetV2 CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0270",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...697A.148B",
"question": "For classifying emission-line regions whose spectra span a broad radial-velocity range, which neural-network architecture maintains higher F1 scores?",
"option_a": "one-dimensional convolutional neural network",
"option_b": "fully connected neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0271",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...698A..80M",
"question": "For predicting simulated 21 cm power spectra from reionization parameters, which neural-network approach gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "single neural-network emulator",
"option_b": "ensemble of independently trained neural-network emulators",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0272",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...698A..80M",
"question": "For inferring reionization parameters from noisy simulated 21 cm power spectra on a coarsely sampled parameter grid, which ML pipeline gives more accurate and better calibrated posterior estimates?",
"option_a": "neural-network emulator with MCMC",
"option_b": "neural density estimator with MCMC",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0273",
"paper_id": "2025A&C....5100929B",
"question": "For compressing observed solar polarization spectra when the proportions of quiet-Sun and active-region profiles vary across training sets, which autoencoder architecture gives more stable reconstruction errors?",
"option_a": "fully connected autoencoder",
"option_b": "one-dimensional convolutional autoencoder",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0274",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...694A..88R",
"question": "For estimating exoplanet atmospheric mass-loss rates from a grid of hydrodynamic models, which method gives more accurate predictions?",
"option_a": "radial basis function regression",
"option_b": "fully connected neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0275",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...992..156A",
"question": "For separating gamma-ray-induced air showers from hadronic background at intermediate energies, which method gives stronger background rejection?",
"option_a": "single-branch MLP using all event features",
"option_b": "two-branch CNN-MLP with radial charge features processed separately",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0276",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..276...20Z",
"question": "For detecting fast radio bursts in follow-up radio observations of sources with known dispersion measures, which deep-learning approach recovers more bursts?",
"option_a": "ResNet binary classifier",
"option_b": "CenterNet object detector",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0277",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....169...24C",
"question": "For recovering single-epoch injected radial-velocity shifts from high-resolution stellar spectra affected by stellar variability, which approach yields lower spectrum-level prediction error?",
"option_a": "linear ensemble of single-line CNNs",
"option_b": "single-line CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0278",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...981..157L",
"question": "For identifying the magnetic class of solar active regions from magnetogram cutouts, which transformer architecture is more reliable across the classes?",
"option_a": "Vision Transformer (ViT Base)",
"option_b": "Data-efficient Image Transformer (DeiT Base)",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0279",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...981..157L",
"question": "For identifying the magnetic class of solar active regions from paired magnetogram and continuum cutouts, which CNN family is more reliable across the classes?",
"option_a": "ResNet",
"option_b": "Inception",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0280",
"paper_id": "2025PASP..137e4503I",
"question": "For detecting fast-moving-object streaks in wide-field difference images, which pipeline achieves higher detection completeness while maintaining very high precision?",
"option_a": "thresholded linear-candidate extraction + deep-classifier + human-vetting pipeline",
"option_b": "encoder-decoder CNN segmentation + endpoint-fitting pipeline",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0281",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...697A.107Y",
"question": "For identifying carbon stars from low-resolution spectra, which method achieves higher recall?",
"option_a": "XGBoost",
"option_b": "multi-scale one-dimensional CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0282",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...695A..81U",
"question": "For identifying pulsating components in eclipsing-binary light curves, which object detector processes the light curves faster while giving higher overall detection accuracy?",
"option_a": "YOLO",
"option_b": "EfficientDet",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0283",
"paper_id": "2025A&C....5100935T",
"question": "For emulating stellar density profiles in binary-population simulations, which method requires less storage while retaining comparable profile accuracy?",
"option_a": "nearest-neighbor profile approximation",
"option_b": "PCA + feed-forward neural-network emulator",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0284",
"paper_id": "2025PhRvD.111d1301Y",
"question": "For reconstructing the arrival directions of simulated muon-neutrino events in a neutrino telescope, which deep-learning pipeline gives finer angular resolution?",
"option_a": "VAE-UNet++ super-resolution followed by a sparse CNN",
"option_b": "sparse CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0285",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...988..204C",
"question": "For determining the bolometric luminosities of type 1 quasars from multi-band photometry, which ML approach is more accurate?",
"option_a": "self-organizing map",
"option_b": "multiple linear regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0286",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...696A.214P",
"question": "For identifying strong gravitational lenses in real survey images, which EfficientNet training strategy gives better classification performance?",
"option_a": "EfficientNet trained from scratch for lens classification",
"option_b": "morphology-pretrained EfficientNet fine-tuned for lens classification",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0287",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...696A.214P",
"question": "For identifying strong gravitational lenses in real survey images, which CNN architecture gives better classification performance?",
"option_a": "U-Net",
"option_b": "Mask R-CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0288",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.541.1682C",
"question": "For reproducing the distribution of stellar metallicities in central galaxies in dark-matter-only simulations, which neural-network pipeline is more accurate?",
"option_a": "stochastic semi-recurrent neural network",
"option_b": "deterministic semi-recurrent neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0289",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...693A.170D",
"question": "For reconstructing a simulated chromospheric line-of-sight magnetic-field map, which neural-network parameterization gives lower error?",
"option_a": "Fourier-feature neural field",
"option_b": "ReLU neural field",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0290",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..281...47Y",
"question": "For removing Galactic foregrounds from simulated cosmic microwave background polarization maps with instrumental noise, which approach gives lower map-reconstruction error?",
"option_a": "Transformer on spherical maps",
"option_b": "convolutional neural network on flat map projections",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0291",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..281...47Y",
"question": "For removing Galactic foregrounds from simulated cosmic microwave background polarization maps, which approach is less expensive to train?",
"option_a": "convolutional neural network on flat map projections",
"option_b": "Transformer on spherical maps",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0292",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.537..640Y",
"question": "For classifying bars when a galaxy-morphology model is applied to images from another survey, which CNN training strategy gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "source-trained CNN applied without adaptation",
"option_b": "CNN adapted with unlabeled images from the new survey",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0293",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..277...10G",
"question": "For determining whether an astronomical image contains a galaxy, which classifier gives more reliable classifications?",
"option_a": "one-dimensional CNN on Zernike-moment features",
"option_b": "support-vector machine on Zernike-moment features",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0294",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..277...10G",
"question": "For classifying galaxies as spiral, elliptical, or peculiar, which ML pipeline gives more balanced classifications?",
"option_a": "support-vector machine on Zernike-moment features",
"option_b": "shallow CNN on galaxy images",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0295",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..277...10G",
"question": "For classifying galaxies as spiral, elliptical, or peculiar, which CNN architecture gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "shallow CNN",
"option_b": "VGG16 CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0296",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...699A.350S",
"question": "For identifying strong gravitational lenses while keeping false positives very low, which approach recovers more lenses?",
"option_a": "single residual CNN",
"option_b": "ensemble of residual CNNs",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0297",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...699A.350S",
"question": "For improving the purity of a strong-lens candidate sample without reducing lens completeness, which ML pipeline is more effective?",
"option_a": "residual-CNN ensemble followed by a lens-modeling CNN",
"option_b": "residual-CNN ensemble",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0298",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...698A.276J",
"question": "For estimating photometric redshifts of bright galaxies, which ML pipeline gives more precise estimates?",
"option_a": "CNN using galaxy images combined with an ANN using magnitudes",
"option_b": "ANN using magnitudes",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0299",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..279...47L",
"question": "For identifying unresolved white-dwarf-main-sequence binaries when one star dominates the optical spectrum, which ML pipeline recovers more systems?",
"option_a": "neural spectral fitting with a Gaussian-process classifier",
"option_b": "neural spectral fitting alone",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0300",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..279...28S",
"question": "For identifying ion-kinetic instabilities when training and evaluation samples come from the same solar-wind simulations, which ML pipeline gives more reliable classifications?",
"option_a": "CNN on velocity-distribution images",
"option_b": "random forest on velocity-distribution moments",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0301",
"paper_id": "2025PASP..137d4503S",
"question": "For identifying eclipsing binaries from light curves, which neural-network architecture gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "two-branch CNN",
"option_b": "two-branch CNN-attention-LSTM",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0302",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...988...59F",
"question": "For reconstructing irregularly sampled multiband quasar light curves in simulations, which ML method gives better probabilistic reconstructions?",
"option_a": "multitask Gaussian-process regression with a damped-random-walk kernel",
"option_b": "latent stochastic-differential-equation neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0303",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...701A.150H",
"question": "For classifying variable sources using low-resolution spectra encoded by an autoencoder, which classifier gives better overall performance?",
"option_a": "logistic regression",
"option_b": "k-nearest-neighbor classifier",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0304",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...993...58F",
"question": "For estimating photospheric magnetic-field strength from line-of-sight magnetograms, which U-Net formulation is more accurate?",
"option_a": "U-Net that directly regresses the magnetic-field components with L1 loss",
"option_b": "U-Net that classifies and refines magnetic-field strength and direction",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0305",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....169..159V",
"question": "For identifying microlensing events from light curves observed at multiple sites, which ML pipeline is more accurate?",
"option_a": "multi-branch recurrent neural network",
"option_b": "XGBoost on fitted light-curve features",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0306",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...994..110K",
"question": "For distinguishing binary from single stars using light curves and spectra, which multimodal method is more accurate?",
"option_a": "self- and cross-attention with dual-projection alignment",
"option_b": "variance-invariance-covariance regularized alignment",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0307",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...983..185F",
"question": "For estimating black-hole spin from simulated photon-ring images at lower angular resolution than the training images, which ML pipeline gives more accurate estimates?",
"option_a": "convolutional neural network on full photon-ring images",
"option_b": "gradient-boosted regression trees on extracted photon-ring geometry",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0308",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.544.1514A",
"question": "For selecting galaxies within the colour space covered by a spectroscopic training sample, which classifier gives a higher AUC?",
"option_a": "random forest classifier",
"option_b": "k-nearest-neighbor classifier",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0309",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.544.1514A",
"question": "For estimating photometric redshifts of higher-redshift galaxies from broadband photometry, which regression method gives lower scatter?",
"option_a": "feed-forward neural network",
"option_b": "Gaussian-process regression",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0310",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...694A.212B",
"question": "For classifying observed ionised nebulae using labelled photoionisation simulations for training, which neural-network architecture gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "feed-forward neural network",
"option_b": "domain-adversarial neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0311",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...980..245C",
"question": "For estimating intracluster light fractions from galaxy-cluster images, which ML pipeline gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "CNN trained on injected intracluster-light profiles without real-data fine-tuning",
"option_b": "CNN pretrained on images with injected intracluster-light profiles and fine-tuned on real cluster images",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0312",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..281...27P",
"question": "For determining the surface gravities of dwarf stars from high-resolution spectra and photometry, which method is more accurate?",
"option_a": "neural spectral model with stellar-evolution constraints",
"option_b": "neural spectral model without stellar-evolution constraints",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0313",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..279...26F",
"question": "For classifying stars, quasars, and galaxies from multiband observations, which ML pipeline gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "CNN-MLP combining source images and multiband photometry",
"option_b": "MLP using multiband photometry",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0314",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..279...26F",
"question": "For classifying stars, quasars, and galaxies from multiband photometry, which method gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "XGBoost",
"option_b": "multilayer perceptron",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0315",
"paper_id": "2025A&C....5300998P",
"question": "For classifying detached and overcontact eclipsing binaries from survey light curves, which neural-network architecture gives higher accuracy across different cadences?",
"option_a": "vision Transformer",
"option_b": "residual convolutional neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0316",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...694A.183B",
"question": "For classifying variable sources from multiband light curves, which recurrent-network architecture gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "band-specific LSTMs followed by direct feature concatenation",
"option_b": "band-specific LSTMs followed by a central LSTM",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0317",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...694A.183B",
"question": "For classifying variable stars from multiband light curves with few observations in each band, which ML method gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "multiband recurrent neural network",
"option_b": "balanced random forest using light-curve features",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0318",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..279...49G",
"question": "For simulating nucleosynthesis during the late burning stages of massive stars, which neural-network design achieves similar accuracy with shorter total inference time?",
"option_a": "one network for isotopic abundances and another for nuclear energy generation",
"option_b": "single network jointly predicting isotopic abundances and nuclear energy generation",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0319",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.540.3753B",
"question": "For reproducing the spread in the stellar mass-metallicity relation of simulated intermediate- and high-mass galaxies, which ML pipeline is more accurate?",
"option_a": "RNN with an auxiliary Fourier-amplitude network and variance-normalized stochastic corrections",
"option_b": "RNN predicting star-formation and metallicity histories directly",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0320",
"paper_id": "2025PhRvD.111j4029T",
"question": "For predicting the remnant properties of merging binary black holes at comparable accuracy, which machine-learning method gives faster evaluations?",
"option_a": "Gaussian process regression",
"option_b": "fully connected neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0321",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...700A..87S",
"question": "For estimating dark-matter halo formation times from simulated galaxy clusters, which machine-learning pipeline gives estimates with less scatter?",
"option_a": "convolutional network using radial gas and stellar property maps",
"option_b": "random forest using halo and galaxy properties",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0322",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...992..153N",
"question": "For identifying quasars from survey light curves, which ML pipeline gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "XGBoost using precomputed light-curve features",
"option_b": "Transformer trained directly on light curves",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0323",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.538.1096R",
"question": "For simulating X-ray reflection spectra of active galactic nuclei, which neural-network approach gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "single feed-forward neural network",
"option_b": "ensemble of feed-forward neural networks",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0324",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.538.2905M",
"question": "For generating low-frequency radio images of galaxy-cluster halos, which generative model produces more realistic images?",
"option_a": "Wasserstein generative adversarial network",
"option_b": "denoising diffusion model",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0325",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.538.2905M",
"question": "For identifying central diffuse emission in low-frequency radio images of galaxy clusters, which neural-network architecture gives higher classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "convolutional neural network with multi-head attention",
"option_b": "conventional convolutional neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0326",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...696A.114P",
"question": "For constraining Galactic radio-pulsar population parameters from simulations, which neural inference strategy reaches comparable results with fewer simulations?",
"option_a": "amortized neural posterior estimation",
"option_b": "truncated sequential neural posterior estimation",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0327",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....169..304T",
"question": "For classifying transients from the first few days of simulated light curves, which ML approach gives higher overall accuracy?",
"option_a": "semi-supervised variational autoencoder with a recurrent classifier",
"option_b": "supervised recurrent neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0328",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..280...50J",
"question": "For reconstructing solar extreme-ultraviolet irradiance from Ca II K images, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "vision Transformer",
"option_b": "residual convolutional neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0329",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.538.1081R",
"question": "For reducing false positives in strong-lens searches while retaining most lenses, which CNN strategy is more effective?",
"option_a": "single EfficientNet CNN",
"option_b": "DenseNet-EfficientNet ensemble",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0330",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..281...58L",
"question": "For estimating atmospheric parameters of M-type stars from low-resolution spectra, which ML pipeline gives more precise estimates?",
"option_a": "support-vector regression",
"option_b": "convolutional neural-network ensemble",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0331",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..281...58L",
"question": "For estimating atmospheric parameters of M-type stars, which ML pipeline gives more precise estimates?",
"option_a": "PCA-LightGBM regression from photometry",
"option_b": "CNN regression from low-resolution spectra",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0332",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...703A.100N",
"question": "For estimating open-cluster metallicities, which machine-learning approach gives lower error?",
"option_a": "XGBoost using low-resolution spectra and broadband photometry",
"option_b": "neural network using color-magnitude-diagram features",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0333",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...693A.245W",
"question": "For distinguishing hot subdwarfs from O stars and white dwarfs using photometric data, which ML pipeline gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "magnitude-based CatBoost",
"option_b": "image-based Swin Transformer",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0334",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...693A.245W",
"question": "For distinguishing hot subdwarfs from O stars and white dwarfs in multiband images, which Transformer architecture gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "shifted-window vision Transformer",
"option_b": "standard vision Transformer",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0335",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...699A.179D",
"question": "For fitting simulated high-resolution X-ray spectra with a limited simulation budget, which normalizing-flow pipeline produces more accurate posterior distributions?",
"option_a": "normalizing flow with multilayer-perceptron compression",
"option_b": "normalizing flow with predefined spectral summaries",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0336",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.536..962N",
"question": "For estimating the cold neutral hydrogen fraction and opacity correction from simulated 21 cm emission spectra, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "deep convolutional network",
"option_b": "convolutional-Transformer network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0337",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...980..108B",
"question": "For reconstructing simulated strongly lensed galaxies when the training population does not match the source population, which score-based inference strategy gives less biased reconstructions?",
"option_a": "score-based inference with an iteratively updated prior",
"option_b": "score-based inference with a fixed prior",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0338",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.537.1608T",
"question": "For reconstructing simulated high-dynamic-range radio-interferometric images, which neural-network approach gives higher accuracy across bright and faint emission?",
"option_a": "end-to-end U-Net reconstruction",
"option_b": "constrained plug-and-play reconstruction with a neural-network denoiser",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0339",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...703A.301B",
"question": "For estimating cosmological parameters from simulated matter power spectra, which regression model gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "multilayer perceptron",
"option_b": "linear regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0340",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..279...54F",
"question": "For estimating quasar redshifts from multiband photometry, which ML approach gives lower scatter in the redshift errors?",
"option_a": "ensemble of XGBoost, TabNet, and FT-Transformer",
"option_b": "TabNet",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0341",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...991..152D",
"question": "For predicting the global 21 cm signal from cosmological and astrophysical parameters, which neural-network architecture achieves similar accuracy with much less training time?",
"option_a": "long short-term memory network",
"option_b": "Kolmogorov-Arnold network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0342",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...991..152D",
"question": "For predicting the global 21 cm signal from cosmological and astrophysical parameters, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error and requires less training time?",
"option_a": "Kolmogorov-Arnold network",
"option_b": "fully connected neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0343",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...987...96M",
"question": "For estimating the mass of a dark-matter subhalo from a simulated stellar stream, which ML pipeline provides tighter and better-calibrated constraints?",
"option_a": "graph convolutional network using individual stellar positions and velocities",
"option_b": "dense neural network using the stellar-density power spectrum",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0344",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...991..120J",
"question": "For estimating the amplitude of matter fluctuations from neutral-hydrogen maps across different cosmological simulation models, which neural-network approach gives less biased predictions?",
"option_a": "domain-invariant CNN",
"option_b": "standard CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0345",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...699A.168C",
"question": "For identifying incorrect variable-star classifications from light curves, which Transformer-based approach provides more reliable uncertainty estimates?",
"option_a": "hierarchical-attention Transformer with Monte Carlo dropout",
"option_b": "ensemble of independently trained Transformer classifiers",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0346",
"paper_id": "2025A&A...702A.148M",
"question": "For estimating RRab metallicities from Gaia G-band light curves, which deep-learning pipeline gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "bidirectional LSTM pipeline with binned light curves",
"option_b": "GRU pipeline with spline-interpolated light curves",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0347",
"paper_id": "2025PhRvD.111h3056P",
"question": "For estimating the surface shape of rotating neutron stars across different equations of state, which regression pipeline gives lower maximum relative error?",
"option_a": "polynomial surface model",
"option_b": "physically constrained feed-forward neural-network surface model",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0348",
"paper_id": "2025PhRvD.112b3503C",
"question": "For detecting parity violation in simulated two-dimensional galaxy distributions, which unsupervised method requires fewer training examples to reach statistical significance?",
"option_a": "trainable-filter scattering transform",
"option_b": "convolutional neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0349",
"paper_id": "2025PhRvD.112b3503C",
"question": "For detecting parity violation in simulated two-dimensional galaxy distributions, which unsupervised method requires fewer training examples to reach statistical significance?",
"option_a": "fixed-wavelet scattering transform",
"option_b": "trainable-filter scattering transform",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0350",
"paper_id": "2025A&C....5200953P",
"question": "For reconstructing lunar terrain from simulated orbital images, which 3D reconstruction pipeline gives lower geometric error?",
"option_a": "photogrammetry combined with 3D Gaussian splatting",
"option_b": "neural radiance field",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0351",
"paper_id": "2025A&C....5200953P",
"question": "For reconstructing lunar terrain from simulated orbital images, which neural 3D reconstruction method produces smaller maximum surface deviations?",
"option_a": "neural radiance field",
"option_b": "3D Gaussian splatting",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0352",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....169..146C",
"question": "For detecting faint sources in astronomical images, which deep-learning pipeline gives higher precision, recall, and F1 score?",
"option_a": "region-based detection CNN",
"option_b": "densely nested segmentation CNN with bit-depth image decomposition and soft supervision",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0353",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....170...21H",
"question": "For vetting transiting exoplanet candidates from light curves, which architecture gives higher classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "CNN-LSTM without attention",
"option_b": "CNN-LSTM with additive attention",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0354",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....170..158Z",
"question": "For identifying blue horizontal-branch stars from low-resolution spectra, which architecture gives higher classification accuracy and F1 score?",
"option_a": "CNN with attention and GRU layers",
"option_b": "ResNet-18 CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0355",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....170..158Z",
"question": "For identifying blue horizontal-branch stars from low-resolution spectra, which training strategy gives higher classification accuracy and F1 score?",
"option_a": "binary-classifier training without transfer learning",
"option_b": "transfer learning with frozen feature layers",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0356",
"paper_id": "2025AJ....170..207U",
"question": "For identifying interstellar filaments and measuring their position angles, which approach better preserves filament morphology?",
"option_a": "traditional image-processing filament extraction + U-Net angle classification",
"option_b": "Mask R-CNN filament extraction + U-Net angle regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0357",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...978..128H",
"question": "For identifying the open magnetic-field footpoints associated with coronal holes in magnetohydrodynamic simulations, which classifier is more accurate?",
"option_a": "linear support-vector machine",
"option_b": "multilayer perceptron",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0358",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...978..151L",
"question": "For detecting strong gravitational lenses in galaxy images, which YOLOX architecture gives higher precision?",
"option_a": "YOLOX with selective-kernel attention",
"option_b": "YOLOX without attention",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0359",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...978..151L",
"question": "For detecting strong gravitational lenses in galaxy-centered image cutouts, which bounding-box loss gives more accurate detections?",
"option_a": "intersection-over-union loss",
"option_b": "generalized intersection-over-union loss",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0360",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...984...67S",
"question": "For forecasting strongly southward interplanetary magnetic-field Bz over the next six hours, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "bidirectional LSTM",
"option_b": "multilayer perceptron",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0361",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...984...87V",
"question": "For forecasting the maximum solar X-ray flux over the next day from magnetic-field and flare-history measurements across multiple solar cycles, which regression method gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "linear regression",
"option_b": "random forest regression",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0362",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...988..118H",
"question": "For forecasting the evolution of geomagnetic activity over a solar cycle, which method is more accurate?",
"option_a": "LSTM with iterative forecast feedback",
"option_b": "feed-forward neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0363",
"paper_id": "2025ApJ...993..146Y",
"question": "For extrapolating coronal magnetic fields from photospheric magnetograms, which method better preserves the divergence-free condition?",
"option_a": "Fourier neural operator with frequency-domain physical constraints",
"option_b": "Fourier neural operator with finite-difference physical constraints",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0364",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..276....4L",
"question": "For detecting point sources in astronomical images, which neural-network pipeline achieves higher purity and completeness?",
"option_a": "U-Net with Laplacian-of-Gaussian localization",
"option_b": "residual encoder-decoder with feature-template matching",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0365",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..276...24L",
"question": "For separating simulated gamma-ray-induced air showers from proton background, which machine-learning approach gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "stacking ensemble of classifiers",
"option_b": "XGBoost classifier",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0366",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..276...37L",
"question": "For identifying Ca II absorption lines in quasar spectra, which CNN architecture gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "residual CNN",
"option_b": "residual CNN with channel and spatial attention",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0367",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..276...39L",
"question": "For identifying pulsar candidates after updating a classifier with data from another radio telescope, which neural-network approach better retains its performance on earlier observations?",
"option_a": "Bayesian convolutional neural network",
"option_b": "deterministic convolutional neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0368",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..276...68X",
"question": "For forecasting C-class or stronger solar flares from active-region magnetic fields, which neural-network approach produces fewer false alarms?",
"option_a": "CNN",
"option_b": "CNN-TCN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0369",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..277...54J",
"question": "For extrapolating active-region coronal magnetic fields from photospheric vector magnetograms, which neural-operator approach better satisfies the divergence-free condition?",
"option_a": "physics-informed neural operator",
"option_b": "data-driven neural operator",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0370",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..278...35M",
"question": "For classifying the morphologies of interacting galaxies from low-resolution images, which superresolution model leads to more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "dual-attention Transformer GAN",
"option_b": "dual-branch CNN-Transformer GAN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0371",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..278...63L",
"question": "For forecasting M-class or stronger solar flares within 24 hours from active-region magnetograms, which ML approach gives a higher true skill score?",
"option_a": "convolutional neural network",
"option_b": "multiscale vision Transformer",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0372",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..279...23Y",
"question": "For segmenting coronal mass ejections in coronagraph images, which method produces more accurate segmentations?",
"option_a": "CNN segmentation network",
"option_b": "CNN-Transformer segmentation network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0373",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..279...23Y",
"question": "For segmenting coronal mass ejections in coronagraph images, which method produces more accurate segmentations?",
"option_a": "Transformer segmentation network",
"option_b": "CNN-Transformer segmentation network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0374",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..279...24L",
"question": "For detecting interplanetary coronal mass ejections in solar-wind time series, which deep-learning pipeline misses fewer events?",
"option_a": "CNN detection pipeline",
"option_b": "CNN-LSTM detection pipeline",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0375",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..279...36Z",
"question": "For classifying stars from low-resolution spectra, which deep-learning pipeline gives higher overall accuracy?",
"option_a": "one-dimensional CNN + ResNet ensemble",
"option_b": "one-dimensional CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0376",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..279...46L",
"question": "For forecasting major solar flares from magnetograms obtained with different instruments, which ML pipeline is more reliable?",
"option_a": "CNN-bidirectional LSTM on magnetogram sequences",
"option_b": "inverted Transformer on magnetic-field-feature sequences",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0377",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..280...10C",
"question": "For identifying Wolf-Rayet stars from stellar spectra, which ML method gives higher F1 scores?",
"option_a": "wide-kernel CNN",
"option_b": "wide-kernel CNN with LSTM",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0378",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..280...22Z",
"question": "For predicting the solar 10.7 cm radio flux over the next few days, which ML pipeline gives lower error?",
"option_a": "Mamba model combining flux history and solar images",
"option_b": "Mamba time-series model using flux history",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0379",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..280...22Z",
"question": "For predicting the solar 10.7 cm radio flux from recent flux measurements and solar images, which multimodal architecture gives lower error?",
"option_a": "Mamba encoders for flux and image sequences",
"option_b": "LSTM flux encoder with a Mamba image encoder",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0380",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..281...31Y",
"question": "For forecasting daily full-disk solar flare activity from its recent history and related solar observations, which Transformer architecture gives lower mean absolute error?",
"option_a": "temporal autocorrelation Transformer",
"option_b": "cross-variable attention Transformer",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0381",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..281...42S",
"question": "For predicting positions and velocities in three-body simulations, which neural-network architecture gives lower errors?",
"option_a": "feed-forward neural network",
"option_b": "self-attention neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0382",
"paper_id": "2025ApJS..281...48X",
"question": "For restoring saturated solar extreme-ultraviolet images, which neural-network approach gives more accurate reconstructions?",
"option_a": "physics-guided U-Net",
"option_b": "generative-adversarial image-restoration network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0383",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.544.3104X",
"question": "For identifying Ap stars from low-resolution spectra, which method gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "channel-attention CNN",
"option_b": "XGBoost",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0384",
"paper_id": "2025MNRAS.544.3104X",
"question": "For identifying Ap stars from low-resolution spectra, which method gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "residual CNN with channel attention",
"option_b": "residual CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0385",
"paper_id": "2025PASP..137c4502L",
"question": "For classifying astronomical image quality, which CNN architecture gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "reduced-block, narrower-channel ShuffleNetV2 with spatial attention",
"option_b": "reduced-block, narrower-channel ShuffleNetV2 without spatial attention",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0386",
"paper_id": "2025PASP..137f4504Y",
"question": "For identifying strong gravitational lenses in galaxy images, which CNN training strategy gives higher recall?",
"option_a": "CNN with momentum-contrast self-supervised pretraining",
"option_b": "CNN trained only with labeled examples",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0387",
"paper_id": "2025PASP..137f4504Y",
"question": "For identifying strong gravitational lenses in galaxy images, which architecture gives higher precision?",
"option_a": "hybrid CNN-Transformer",
"option_b": "Transformer classifier",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0388",
"paper_id": "2025PASP..137g4502X",
"question": "For reconstructing high-resolution solar H-alpha spectra from low-resolution spectra, which generative model produces less spectral distortion?",
"option_a": "wavelet-pooled conditional diffusion model",
"option_b": "super-resolution generative adversarial network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0389",
"paper_id": "2025PASP..137i4502C",
"question": "For estimating red-giant atmospheric parameters from low-resolution spectra, which CNN architecture gives lower errors?",
"option_a": "ConvNeXt",
"option_b": "shallow, wide CNN with limited pooling",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0390",
"paper_id": "2025PASP..137i4502C",
"question": "For estimating red-giant atmospheric parameters from spectra and photometric images, which multimodal network gives lower errors?",
"option_a": "multimodal network without a Transformer fusion encoder",
"option_b": "multimodal network with a Transformer fusion encoder",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0391",
"paper_id": "2025PASP..137j4503L",
"question": "For identifying blue straggler stars from low-resolution spectra, which CNN architecture gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "ConvNeXt CNN",
"option_b": "multiscale dilated large-kernel CNN with grouped channel attention",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0392",
"paper_id": "2025PhRvD.112h4025S",
"question": "For generating eccentric binary-black-hole waveforms, which neural-network architecture yields lower waveform mismatch?",
"option_a": "multilayer perceptron with convolutional refinement",
"option_b": "Fourier-feature neural network with convolutional refinement",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0393",
"paper_id": "2025RAA....25e5007S",
"question": "For identifying pulsar candidates from pulse-profile and dispersion plots, which CNN architecture gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "ResNet-50",
"option_b": "two-layer CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0394",
"paper_id": "2025RAA....25i5017Y",
"question": "For classifying stars from low-resolution spectra, which deep-learning pipeline gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "ResNet-DenseNet pipeline",
"option_b": "Swin Transformer-ResNet-DenseNet pipeline",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0395",
"paper_id": "2025Univ...11...13J",
"question": "For identifying Blazhko modulation in RRab stars from their light curves, which ML pipeline gives higher classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "residual CNN using phase-folded light curves",
"option_b": "multilayer perceptron using light-curve parameters",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0396",
"paper_id": "2026MNRAS.547ag445S",
"question": "For identifying lensed quasars from multiband images with limited labeled data, which ML pipeline gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "variational-autoencoder compression + dense neural-network classifier",
"option_b": "convolutional neural network with virtual adversarial training",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0397",
"paper_id": "2026PASP..138a4103J",
"question": "For forecasting kilonova light curves from gravitational-wave alerts, which neural-network pipeline gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "bidirectional LSTM using alert parameters",
"option_b": "CNN-bidirectional LSTM using alert parameters and sky maps",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0398",
"paper_id": "2026A&A...707A.105T",
"question": "For estimating photometric redshifts of faint galaxies in fields observed under conditions that differ from the training field, which CNN strategy gives lower scatter and fewer catastrophic errors?",
"option_a": "CNN trained only on the labeled field",
"option_b": "CNN with adversarial domain adaptation",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0399",
"paper_id": "2026A&A...707A.105T",
"question": "When target-field spectroscopy is limited mainly to brighter galaxies, which CNN training strategy gives lower bias and fewer catastrophic redshift errors across the full field?",
"option_a": "CNN retrained with the available target-field spectra",
"option_b": "adversarial domain-adaptation CNN using unlabeled target-field images",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0400",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...998..154K",
"question": "For distinguishing repeating and nonrepeating fast radio bursts using their morphology, which ML pipeline gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "ConvNeXt using dynamic spectra",
"option_b": "gradient-boosted decision trees using fitted burst parameters",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0401",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...998..340L",
"question": "For predicting whether a solar flare will be accompanied by a coronal mass ejection from active-region magnetograms, which neural-network pipeline gives a higher TSS?",
"option_a": "vision Transformer and LSTM using magnetogram sequences",
"option_b": "vision Transformer using individual magnetograms",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0402",
"paper_id": "2026A&A...706A.317C",
"question": "For locating brightest cluster galaxies in simulated multiband images, which residual-network architecture gives more accurate positions?",
"option_a": "residual encoder-decoder network predicting a position map",
"option_b": "residual network directly regressing position coordinates",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0403",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...996....9O",
"question": "For modeling the thermal and chemical evolution of primordial gas with many short timesteps, which neural-network pipeline remains accurate?",
"option_a": "deep operator network with learned timescale-guided updates",
"option_b": "deep operator network with direct iterative updates",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0404",
"paper_id": "2026A&A...705A.226B",
"question": "For separating emission components in X-ray images when the component spectra differ from those represented in the training data, which ML pipeline is more robust?",
"option_a": "unrolled proximal-optimization network",
"option_b": "iterative optimization with an embedded learned wavelet-like CNN transform",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0405",
"paper_id": "2026A&A...708A..23A",
"question": "For identifying hot-subdwarf binaries with composite spectra, which ML method gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "self-organizing map classifier",
"option_b": "ensemble of convolutional neural networks",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0406",
"paper_id": "2026A&A...708A..23A",
"question": "For distinguishing cool, helium-poor hot subdwarfs from hotter, helium-rich hot subdwarfs in low-resolution spectra, which ML method gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "ensemble of convolutional neural networks",
"option_b": "self-organizing map classifier",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0407",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ..1002L..47K",
"question": "For recovering the Galactic mass distribution from stellar kinematics in low-completeness regions, which normalizing-flow pipeline is more accurate?",
"option_a": "conditional velocity-distribution and stellar-density modeling",
"option_b": "selection-weighted phase-space modeling",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0408",
"paper_id": "2026A&A...709A..90C",
"question": "For estimating sodium abundances of late-type stars from a three-dimensional non-LTE spectral grid, which ML pipeline gives lower overall interpolation error?",
"option_a": "radial-basis-function interpolation of line profiles",
"option_b": "feed-forward neural network using line strengths",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0409",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ..1000...14F",
"question": "For classifying supernova subtypes from low-resolution spectra, which neural-network pipeline gives a higher macro F1 score?",
"option_a": "convolutional spectral classifier",
"option_b": "masked-spectrum-pretrained attention classifier",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0410",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ..1004..168J",
"question": "For reconstructing the three-dimensional evolution of a coronal mass ejection from simulated coronagraph observations with few viewing directions, which neural-network variant gives lower electron-density error?",
"option_a": "neural radiance field with plasma-continuity and solar-wind constraints",
"option_b": "neural radiance field without physical constraints",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0411",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..283...45C",
"question": "For detecting fast radio bursts in dynamic spectra, which neural-network architecture gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "residual CNN",
"option_b": "Swin Transformer",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0412",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..283...45C",
"question": "For estimating the dispersion measure of fast radio bursts, which ML approach gives more precise estimates?",
"option_a": "direct neural-network regression",
"option_b": "neural segmentation followed by dispersion-curve fitting",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0413",
"paper_id": "2026A&A...708A.280B",
"question": "For inferring spectral-model parameters from simulated high-resolution X-ray spectra, which dimensionality-reduction method gives more accurate posterior distributions?",
"option_a": "principal component analysis",
"option_b": "autoencoder",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0414",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...998..102W",
"question": "For identifying quasi-periodic micropulses in individual pulsar pulses, which residual-network pipeline gives higher precision at similar recall?",
"option_a": "two-stage residual network combining pulse profiles and power-spectrum diagnostics",
"option_b": "single-stage residual network using power-spectrum diagnostics",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0415",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...998..102W",
"question": "For identifying quasi-periodic micropulses in individual pulsar pulses, which residual-network pipeline gives better classification performance?",
"option_a": "two-stage residual network using pulse-profile and power-spectrum images",
"option_b": "single residual network combining one-dimensional pulse and power-spectrum sequences",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0416",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..283...55B",
"question": "For classifying supernovae from host-galaxy information, which ML pipeline gives a higher class-weighted F1 score?",
"option_a": "random forest using neural-network estimates of galaxy stellar mass and star-formation rate, redshift, and host separation",
"option_b": "random forest using host-galaxy photometry",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0417",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ..1001..120X",
"question": "For estimating the position angles of protostellar outflows from simulated CO observations when the training set does not cover every mass and inclination, which architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "multimodal model with a Vision Transformer image encoder",
"option_b": "multimodal model with a residual CNN image encoder",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0418",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ..1003..141D",
"question": "For classifying variable stars from long, densely sampled light curves, which sequence architecture gives higher macro-F1?",
"option_a": "Transformer",
"option_b": "LSTM",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0419",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ..1003..141D",
"question": "For classifying variable stars from light curves, which contrastive-learning strategy gives higher macro-F1?",
"option_a": "non-hierarchical contrastive learning",
"option_b": "hierarchical contrastive learning",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0420",
"paper_id": "2026A&A...707A.203C",
"question": "For detecting H I galaxies in simulated radio data cubes when accurate source localization and sizing are required, which 3D CNN variant performs better?",
"option_a": "3D CNN with a cascaded loss for joint detection and source-parameter prediction",
"option_b": "3D CNN with a detection-only loss",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0421",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..283....7S",
"question": "For distinguishing eruptive and confined solar flares using light-curve morphology measurements and CNN-derived features, which classifier better separates the two classes while producing fewer false alarms?",
"option_a": "random forest",
"option_b": "linear support-vector machine",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0422",
"paper_id": "2026A&A...706A.157P",
"question": "For interpolating three-dimensional temperature and horizontal wind fields across a grid of simulated gas-giant atmospheres, which ML model gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "XGBoost",
"option_b": "dense neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0423",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..282...59Z",
"question": "For distinguishing gamma-ray bursts from background in multi-energy-band light curves, which residual CNN achieves higher precision at similar recall?",
"option_a": "residual CNN with adaptive frequency-domain enhancement",
"option_b": "residual CNN with channel-and-spatial attention",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0424",
"paper_id": "2026PASP..138e4508J",
"question": "For classifying transients and variable sources from early multiband light curves, which Transformer pipeline gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "sparse-attention Transformer",
"option_b": "dense-attention Transformer with masked-light-curve pretraining",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0425",
"paper_id": "2026PASP..138e4508J",
"question": "For classifying transients and variable sources from spectra, which CNN architecture gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "multiscale 1D CNN with channel attention",
"option_b": "conventional 1D CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0426",
"paper_id": "2026PhRvD.113d3522C",
"question": "For estimating the amplitude of the stochastic gravitational-wave background from simulated quasar proper-motion catalogs with complete sky coverage, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "fully connected neural network",
"option_b": "graph neural network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0427",
"paper_id": "2026PhRvD.113j3536Z",
"question": "Which ML pipeline more accurately predicts cosmic microwave background temperature and polarization power spectra from cosmological parameters?",
"option_a": "residual multilayer perceptron predicting PCA coefficients and reconstructing the spectra",
"option_b": "self-attention Transformer directly predicting the power spectra",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0428",
"paper_id": "2026PhRvD.113j3536Z",
"question": "For predicting cosmic microwave background temperature and polarization power spectra with an attention-based emulator, which attention mechanism gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "dot-product attention",
"option_b": "linear attention",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0429",
"paper_id": "2026A&C....54.01027S",
"question": "For estimating the parameters of non-precessing binary black holes from simulated gravitational-wave signals, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "CNN",
"option_b": "hybrid CNN-Transformer",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0430",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..282...25M",
"question": "For identifying early-type galaxies with dust lanes from galaxy images, which ML pipeline gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "focal-loss CNN",
"option_b": "CNN trained with conditional-diffusion augmentation",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0431",
"paper_id": "2026AJ....171..268F",
"question": "For generating galaxy images in specified morphological classes, which diffusion-model architecture produces more realistic images?",
"option_a": "conditional diffusion model with additional U-Net skip connections",
"option_b": "conditional diffusion model with a standard U-Net",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0432",
"paper_id": "2026AJ....171..268F",
"question": "For generating galaxy images, which diffusion-model architecture more accurately reproduces their color and size distributions?",
"option_a": "U-Net diffusion model with adaptive convolution-attention blocks",
"option_b": "U-Net diffusion model without adaptive convolution-attention blocks",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0433",
"paper_id": "2026MNRAS.546ag283T",
"question": "For predicting the infrared spectra of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from their molecular structures, which method gives lower spectral error?",
"option_a": "graph neural network with attention-based molecular aggregation",
"option_b": "graph attention network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0434",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...999..231S",
"question": "For localizing gamma-ray bursts in simulated observations with low photon counts and strong background contamination, which neural-network architecture gives smaller angular offsets?",
"option_a": "reconstructed-image U-Net",
"option_b": "hybrid detector-event and reconstructed-image network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0435",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...999..231S",
"question": "For localizing gamma-ray bursts in simulated observations with low photon counts and strong background contamination, which neural-network architecture gives smaller angular offsets?",
"option_a": "detector-event MLP reconstruction network",
"option_b": "hybrid detector-event and reconstructed-image network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0436",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...997...36M",
"question": "For estimating photometric redshifts among galaxies with similar colors, which ML approach is less biased toward the mean redshift of the group?",
"option_a": "image-based deep capsule network",
"option_b": "local linear regression using integrated photometry",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0437",
"paper_id": "2026PhRvD.113j3548W",
"question": "For recovering the cosmological 21-cm signal from simulated foreground-contaminated intensity maps, which ML pipeline is more accurate?",
"option_a": "PCA foreground subtraction followed by U-Net reconstruction",
"option_b": "PCA foreground subtraction",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0438",
"paper_id": "2026PhRvD.113d3508Y",
"question": "For predicting nonlinear matter power spectra from cosmological parameters using simulations of different fidelity, which neural-network architecture gives lower mean error?",
"option_a": "low-fidelity emulator with a correction network directly predicting the high-fidelity spectrum",
"option_b": "low-fidelity emulator with a correction network predicting the high-to-low-fidelity ratio",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0439",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ..1002..142D",
"question": "For estimating the three-dimensional shapes of massive galaxy clusters from simulated observations, which neural-network pipeline is more accurate?",
"option_a": "CNN-GNN fusion network using cluster images and member-galaxy measurements",
"option_b": "GNN using member-galaxy measurements",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0440",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284...58Z",
"question": "For identifying observations containing fast radio transients from time-frequency spectra, which instance-segmentation backbone produces fewer false detections while retaining all transient-containing observations?",
"option_a": "ResNet-18 residual CNN backbone",
"option_b": "HRNet high-resolution CNN backbone",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0441",
"paper_id": "2026AJ....171..114S",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from broadband photometry using a combined set of spectroscopic and photometric reference redshifts, which neural-network architecture gives lower redshift-estimation scatter?",
"option_a": "Bayesian neural network",
"option_b": "point-estimate neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0442",
"paper_id": "2026AJ....171..114S",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from broadband photometry using a combined set of spectroscopic and photometric reference redshifts, which neural-network approach provides more reliable calibrated redshift uncertainties?",
"option_a": "point-estimate neural network",
"option_b": "Bayesian neural network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0443",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..283...30S",
"question": "For classifying transient reports by observational band or messenger, which text-embedding approach gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "pretrained Sentence Transformer",
"option_b": "contrastively fine-tuned Sentence Transformer",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0444",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ..1002..215B",
"question": "For predicting the long-term ejection of near-Earth asteroids from their initial orbital elements, which supervised classifier gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "k-nearest-neighbor classifier",
"option_b": "gradient-boosted decision trees",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0445",
"paper_id": "2026A&A...710A.194B",
"question": "For removing stellar-activity signals from simulated radial-velocity measurements using changes in spectral line profiles, which neural-network architecture leaves lower residual variability?",
"option_a": "fully connected neural network",
"option_b": "convolutional attention network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0446",
"paper_id": "2026A&A...710A.194B",
"question": "For removing stellar-activity signals from radial-velocity observations of an active K dwarf, which neural-network pipeline leaves lower residual variability?",
"option_a": "convolutional network using standard line-profile indicators",
"option_b": "convolutional attention network using orthogonal line-profile coefficients",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0447",
"paper_id": "2026A&C....5401002K",
"question": "For detecting simulated fast radio bursts from few-channel radio time series, which CNN architecture gives higher recall?",
"option_a": "one-dimensional fully convolutional network",
"option_b": "one-dimensional EfficientNet CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0448",
"paper_id": "2026A&C....5401002K",
"question": "For searching few-channel radio time series for fast radio bursts, which CNN pipeline produces fewer false detections?",
"option_a": "single EfficientNet classifier",
"option_b": "two-stage EfficientNet cascade with the second classifier trained on first-stage false positives",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0449",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ..1003...27S",
"question": "For predicting stellar spectra from stellar parameters and chemical abundances, which activation function gives lower validation error?",
"option_a": "rectified linear unit",
"option_b": "sigmoid linear unit",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0450",
"paper_id": "2026AJ....171..340K",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from deep, high-resolution images, which CNN training strategy gives more accurate predictions?",
"option_a": "contrastive pretraining on galaxy images followed by redshift fine-tuning",
"option_b": "joint contrastive, color-prediction, and redshift-prediction training",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0451",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...997...65R",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from multiband photometry, which normalizing-flow architecture produces fewer catastrophic errors?",
"option_a": "conditional affine-coupling normalizing flow",
"option_b": "conditional neural spline flow",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0452",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...997...65R",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from broadband photometry, which generative model gives more accurate estimates?",
"option_a": "conditional generative adversarial network",
"option_b": "conditional normalizing flow",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0453",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...996..107B",
"question": "For estimating galaxy redshifts from broadband photometry, which ML approach gives more accurate estimates?",
"option_a": "weighted ensemble of gradient-boosted trees, nearest-neighbor regression, and a neural network",
"option_b": "gradient-boosted decision-tree regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0454",
"paper_id": "2026PASP..138c4503R",
"question": "For classifying transient candidates from image cutouts, which training strategy gives higher ROC AUC?",
"option_a": "MaxViT pretrained on galaxy images",
"option_b": "MaxViT without pretraining",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0455",
"paper_id": "2026PASP..138c4503R",
"question": "For real-time classification of transient candidates from image cutouts, which vision architecture is more computationally efficient?",
"option_a": "ConvNeXt CNN",
"option_b": "MaxViT",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0456",
"paper_id": "2026PASP..138f4501L",
"question": "For classifying fields by stellar density from simulated multiband images, which CNN architecture provides higher accuracy with lower computational cost?",
"option_a": "DenseNet-121",
"option_b": "ResNet-34",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0457",
"paper_id": "2026A&C....5501067S",
"question": "For estimating cosmological parameters from simulated X-ray cluster catalogs, which neural-network pipeline gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "fully connected network using cluster abundance and power spectra",
"option_b": "3D CNN using cluster abundance and spatial density fields",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0458",
"paper_id": "2026AJ....171..205I",
"question": "For distinguishing transients from image artifacts using a large labeled training set, which neural-network architecture gives higher classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "convolutional neural network",
"option_b": "localized-attention network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0459",
"paper_id": "2026A&C....5400997M",
"question": "For solving stiff Lane-Emden equations, which neural architecture gives lower solution error?",
"option_a": "fully connected physics-informed network",
"option_b": "physics-informed network combining radial-basis-function and Kolmogorov-Arnold layers",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0460",
"paper_id": "2026A&C....5501037C",
"question": "For distinguishing primary particle-track hits from backscattered hits in strongly imbalanced simulated tracker data, which training objective gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "graph-balanced focal loss",
"option_b": "binary cross-entropy loss",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0461",
"paper_id": "2026A&C....5501037C",
"question": "For distinguishing primary particle-track hits from backscattered hits in simulated tracker data, which interaction-network architecture gives higher classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "interaction network with a multi-head attention encoder",
"option_b": "interaction network with a fully connected encoder",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0462",
"paper_id": "2026AJ....171...94C",
"question": "For classifying radio-frequency interference in pulsar frequency-phase images, which image-classification architecture gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "MobileNetV2 with channel attention, dynamic activations, and multiscale feature fusion",
"option_b": "Swin Transformer",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0463",
"paper_id": "2026AJ....171..107C",
"question": "For estimating spatially structured backgrounds in astronomical images, which generative model gives lower reconstruction error?",
"option_a": "denoising diffusion probabilistic model",
"option_b": "generative adversarial inpainting network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0464",
"paper_id": "2026AJ....171..132C",
"question": "For classifying galaxy morphologies, which training strategy gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "Vision Transformer with vision-language contrastive pretraining",
"option_b": "Vision Transformer with image-classification pretraining",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0465",
"paper_id": "2026AJ....171..311W",
"question": "For estimating stellar parameters from spectra, which neural-network pipeline gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "gated recurrent neural network using spectra",
"option_b": "Transformer combining spectra and photometry",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0466",
"paper_id": "2026AJ....172...18M",
"question": "For reconstructing asteroid gravitational fields from simulated measurements, which neural-network pipeline gives lower relative error?",
"option_a": "neural density-field model with shape information, gravitational-equation regularization, and adaptive altitude sampling",
"option_b": "neural density-field model with uniform spatial sampling",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0467",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...997..135P",
"question": "For localizing short gamma-ray bursts from detector-panel count rates in background-free simulations, which neural-network output representation gives lower angular error?",
"option_a": "sine-cosine angle regression",
"option_b": "direct angle regression",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0468",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ...998..258Y",
"question": "For identifying severely inaccurate galaxy photometric-redshift estimates, which ML pipeline gives higher recall with fewer false positives?",
"option_a": "binary neural network using galaxy magnitudes directly",
"option_b": "binary neural network using redshift probabilities generated by a support-vector machine",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0469",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ..1001...51Z",
"question": "For inferring the parameters of a nuclear level-density formula, which Transformer training strategy gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "Transformer trained without physical-constraint penalties",
"option_b": "Transformer trained with physical-constraint penalties",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0470",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ..1001...51Z",
"question": "For predicting nuclear level-density parameters for an isotope chain excluded from training, which Transformer training strategy gives lower error?",
"option_a": "Transformer trained with physical constraints and no parameter priors",
"option_b": "Transformer initialized from parameter priors without physical constraints",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0471",
"paper_id": "2026ApJ..1001...96C",
"question": "For extrapolating coronal magnetic fields, which generative-model training strategy produces fields that better satisfy the force-free and divergence-free conditions?",
"option_a": "3D generative adversarial network with equation-constrained retraining and numerical-gradient guidance",
"option_b": "3D generative adversarial network without equation-constrained retraining or numerical-gradient guidance",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0472",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..282....5Z",
"question": "For reconstructing irregular gaps in neutron-monitor count rates, which method gives lower error?",
"option_a": "TimesNet periodicity-based convolutional network",
"option_b": "SAITS self-attention imputation network",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0473",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..282...52L",
"question": "For multi-day forecasting of the 10.7 cm solar radio flux from its recent history, which neural-network architecture gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "TimesNet with frequency-domain convolution",
"option_b": "N-BEATS with residual fully connected blocks",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0474",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..282...70C",
"question": "For classifying chemically peculiar stars from low-resolution spectra, which ML method gives more accurate classifications?",
"option_a": "hybrid LSTM-CNN",
"option_b": "XGBoost",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0475",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..283...38S",
"question": "For identifying quasars from low-resolution spectra and catalog measurements, which deep-learning pipeline gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "neural network combining spectra and catalog measurements",
"option_b": "Transformer using catalog measurements only",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0476",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..283...44L",
"question": "For classifying solar active regions by magnetic type from magnetograms and continuum images, which neural-network architecture gives higher overall accuracy?",
"option_a": "vision Transformer",
"option_b": "hybrid vision Transformer-CNN",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0477",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..283...46L",
"question": "For predicting the maximum X-ray flux from solar active-region magnetogram sequences over the next day, which neural-network method gives lower error?",
"option_a": "CNN-LSTM with standard point-estimate output",
"option_b": "CNN-LSTM with Monte Carlo-dropout probabilistic output",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0478",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..283...49L",
"question": "For classifying galaxy morphologies from images, which vision Transformer training strategy gives higher accuracy?",
"option_a": "vision Transformer trained from scratch",
"option_b": "vision Transformer with masked-autoencoder pretraining",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0479",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..283...49L",
"question": "For detecting strong gravitational lenses in images, which vision Transformer training strategy gives higher average precision?",
"option_a": "vision Transformer trained from scratch",
"option_b": "vision Transformer with masked-autoencoder pretraining",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0480",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..283...56Y",
"question": "For extrapolating coronal magnetic fields from photospheric magnetograms, which U-shaped neural-operator training strategy better satisfies the force-free condition?",
"option_a": "U-shaped neural operator trained only on magnetic-field data",
"option_b": "U-shaped neural operator fine-tuned with grid-based physical constraints",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0481",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..283...58L",
"question": "For forecasting M-class or stronger solar flares from active-region data, which ML pipeline gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "fusion of a solar-activity-parameter network and a magnetogram CNN",
"option_b": "magnetogram CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0482",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284....7L",
"question": "For estimating elemental abundances by fitting simulated stellar spectra from the training distribution, which parameter-fitting strategy gives lower errors?",
"option_a": "fitting all PCA combinations of stellar parameters with L1 regularization",
"option_b": "fitting only the dominant PCA combinations of stellar parameters",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0483",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284....7L",
"question": "For estimating stellar parameters by fitting observed spectra with a neural spectral model built from simulated spectra, which strategy agrees more closely with catalog values?",
"option_a": "fitting only the dominant PCA combinations of stellar parameters",
"option_b": "fitting all PCA combinations of stellar parameters with L1 regularization",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0484",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284...14L",
"question": "For identifying Wolf-Rayet stars from stellar spectra, which ML method gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "random forest using the same emission-line-guided features",
"option_b": "multiscale large-kernel CNN with emission-line-guided attention",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0485",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284...14L",
"question": "For distinguishing Wolf-Rayet subtypes from other stellar spectra, which CNN variant gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "the same CNN with random initialization",
"option_b": "multiscale large-kernel CNN initialized with broad emission-line profiles",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0486",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284...27M",
"question": "For localizing galaxy-scale strong lenses when accurate bounding boxes are required, which transformer detector gives higher average precision?",
"option_a": "the same transformer detector with auxiliary arc supervision only",
"option_b": "transformer detector with auxiliary arc supervision and explicit lens-arc relation modeling",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0487",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284...35L",
"question": "For reconstructing cosmic microwave background B modes from simulated single-frequency polarization maps contaminated by Galactic dust, which neural-network pipeline gives lower reconstruction error?",
"option_a": "self-attention adversarial map-reconstruction network",
"option_b": "U-Net regression map-reconstruction network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0488",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284...45W",
"question": "For estimating stellar masses of low-redshift galaxies from photometric survey data, which neural-network pipeline gives lower prediction error?",
"option_a": "ResNet using galaxy images",
"option_b": "ResNet-MLP combining galaxy images and catalog photometry",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0489",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284...66L",
"question": "For predicting gamma-ray detector background spectra from spacecraft telemetry, which neural-network architecture gives lower error?",
"option_a": "grouped Transformer with single-layer perceptron encoders",
"option_b": "grouped Transformer with three-layer MLP encoders",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0490",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284...74H",
"question": "For detecting coronal mass ejections in coronagraph images, which self-supervised image encoder gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "LeNet encoder trained by masked image reconstruction",
"option_b": "vision Transformer encoder trained by masked image reconstruction",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0491",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284...74H",
"question": "For localizing coronal mass ejections in coronagraph images, which PCA-based feature extractor gives a higher F1 score?",
"option_a": "two-stage PCA convolutional network",
"option_b": "single-layer PCA projection",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0492",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284...78Z",
"question": "For segmenting radio-frequency interference in radio-telescope time-frequency data when only a small fraction of the samples are labeled, which training strategy gives higher F1 and boundary accuracy?",
"option_a": "adaptive-threshold semisupervised training with two teachers and boundary-aware loss",
"option_b": "supervised training using labeled samples only",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0493",
"paper_id": "2026ApJS..284...78Z",
"question": "For segmenting radio-frequency interference in radio-telescope time-frequency data with very few labeled examples, which CNN architecture gives higher F1 and boundary accuracy?",
"option_a": "multiscale attention residual U-Net",
"option_b": "lightweight residual fully convolutional network",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0494",
"paper_id": "2026MNRAS.545f2095T",
"question": "For estimating black-hole spin from simulated images at the angular resolution of horizon-scale observations, which neural-network pipeline gives more accurate predictions?",
"option_a": "autoencoder super-resolution followed by CNN regression",
"option_b": "CNN-RNN regression from image sequences",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "hard"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0495",
"paper_id": "2026PASP..138d4508H",
"question": "For classifying galaxy morphologies when the test images come from a different survey than the training images, which ML approach is more accurate?",
"option_a": "pretrained multimodal vision-language model fine-tuned for morphology classification",
"option_b": "Swin Transformer trained for morphology classification",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0496",
"paper_id": "2026PASP..138e4501L",
"question": "For detecting asteroids with faint trails in ground-based images, which object-detection architecture gives higher overall accuracy?",
"option_a": "standard real-time detection Transformer",
"option_b": "real-time detection Transformer with adaptive multiscale features, dual-path queries, and scale-balanced training",
"correct_option": "B",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0497",
"paper_id": "2026PASP..138e4503W",
"question": "For identifying Galactic H II regions from medium-resolution spectra with limited labeled examples, which neural-network training strategy gives higher classification accuracy?",
"option_a": "Siamese metric learning with shared wide-kernel CNN encoders",
"option_b": "direct classification with the same wide-kernel CNN",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0498",
"paper_id": "2026PASP..138e4505G",
"question": "For selecting high-redshift Lyα-blob candidates from broadband images using measured morphology and photometry, which supervised classifier gives a higher F1 score with limited labeled data?",
"option_a": "XGBoost",
"option_b": "multilayer perceptron",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0499",
"paper_id": "2026PASP..138e4509D",
"question": "For estimating quasar photometric redshifts from multiband images, which neural-network pipeline gives more accurate predictions?",
"option_a": "ResNet with image-spectrum contrastive pretraining",
"option_b": "ResNet trained directly for redshift regression from images",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
},
{
"question_id": "Q0500",
"paper_id": "2026Univ...12...50L",
"question": "For predicting the intensity of strong sporadic E layers from ionosonde observations, which neural-network design gives lower error?",
"option_a": "two-stage network that first predicts occurrence and then estimates event intensity",
"option_b": "single-stage network that directly estimates intensity",
"correct_option": "A",
"difficulty": "easy"
}
]
|