Skip to content
‹ Back to IndustriesSciences

The increasing utility of machine learning in astrophysical research

Hunter Gabbard, a PHD candidate at the University of Glasgow and the LIGO scientific collaboration, spoke to Sean Heath for our Science podcast in a first of three part series discussing different elements of machine learning. In today’s episode, we discuss the relationship between human and machine learning and how these machines can even help…

This story was produced through MarketScale. See how Sciences teams put it to work with Executive Thought Leadership.

By Zach Werblo · ·
Share
The increasing utility of machine learning in astrophysical research

Key takeaways

01

Hunter Gabbard, a PHD candidate at the University of Glasgow and the LIGO scientific collaboration, spoke to Sean Heath for our Science podcast in a first of three part series discussing different elements of machine learning.

02

In today’s episode, we discuss the relationship between human and machine learning and how these machines can even help…

Free workspace

Turn your Sciences expertise into content.

Record interviews, organize footage, and write with AI on a free trial of the MarketScale platform for qualifying companies. No demo required, no credit card.

Try it Free

Hunter Gabbard, a PHD candidate at the University of Glasgow and the LIGO scientific collaboration, spoke to Sean Heath for our Science podcast in a first of three part series discussing different elements of machine learning. In today’s episode, we discuss the relationship between human and machine learning and how these machines can even help us better understand some of the universe’s biggest mysteries.

Sean Heath: So today I want to start off with just the basic concept of human learning. Talk to me about how something goes from an idea, to research, to somewhat of established knowledge.

Hunter Gabbard: I think to first understand that, you must first ask the question ‘how do humans learn’. When you try to make a machine think the same way as a human, there are many problems that arise. One of the biggest is having to give the machine a problem to solve. Whereas with a human, you’re not going to be told what questions to answer. With a machine you have to tell it what to solve. We haven’t gotten to the point at least with machine learning to have machines establish questions on their own. We’re able to ask those questions, yes, but the you have to come up with the problem for the machine to solve.

If someone were to figure that out, they’d be a very rich person

SH: As you mentioned one person gets a question, they test that question. Then they report those results & the process is repeated until there’s a large gathering of data that then can be looked at observed, and becomes established knowledge. Machine learning can take that process and accelerate it exponentially, but one thing machine learning can’t do that humans do naturally is look for shortcuts. Machines don’t take the initiative to find shortcuts when solving a problem, do they?

HG: It depends on how you define shortcuts. So with a machine learning algorithm, the reason they’re so much faster is that most of the power it takes to try and solve a problem on a normal program or even a normal human brain, is all done in the very beginning after training itself over and over again on some problem you’re trying to get it solved. Once it’s trained on that specific problem you then just say ‘ok I’ll feed it some new stuff it’s never seen before’, that’s when it will produce an answer. Once you’ve trained the machine on that one problem it’s sort of set in its ways you don’t have to adjust anything. You sort of set it up and it’s on it’s way.

SH: So it’s basically a constant series of layers of “if-then” statements?

HG: Yeah, it’s basically a bunch of filter to some.

And this specific variant of Machine Learning I’m referring to is deep learning. There are all different variants of machine learning out there. There are some that are simple others that are more complex like generative adversarial networks.

How I like to think of them is sort of like a cops and counterfeiters game. You have two of these AI competing against the other. One neural network is the counterfeiter the other is the cop.

The counterfeiter network is trying to make fake Picasso’s against which the cop network is trying to determine its authenticity. All you’re doing is feeding noise to these neural networks and as a result something pops out. What the cop network does is compare the AI product to real Picasso paintings and figure out which is which.

If the cop successfully figures it out, it is rewarded. If it is fooled, it’s penalized. The counterfeiter network is also rewarded if it fools the cop.

I think that’s the best analogy, it’s sort of a Darwinian adversarial evolution type deal. It’s very interesting and they’re very powerful and can make some weird things. Google used this and produced these “dream-like” images from the data it was being fed. It’s a very hot topic right now

SH:One of the things you’re doing at the LIGOSC is you’re applying those principles and processes into more in-depth study into black holes. I think with the recent passing of Stephen hawking it’s very appropriate to talk about black holes today. How is AI opening up avenues from study for you in regards to black holes?

HG: What we do at Ligo is look at gravitational waves, which were originally predicted by Einstein through his general theory of relativity. You can get these waves from very violent events like the merger of two neutron stars or, in this instance, the merger of two black holes. When you get that merger, you get these ripples in space-time that travels out after these events and a lot of energy is dispersed.

Some of that energy is in the form of gravitational waves which eventually hits us. We measure these waves using essentially a very fine ruler that’s able to measure the bending and squeezing of space-time. Now, the signal is very very tiny.

To measure the signal would be liken standing on earth and trying to watch a star wiggle by the width of a human hair. So because these signals are so small they’re buried in the noise produced by the detectors, so it’s a data analysis problem at that point. Right now, we have something called match template filtering.

We construct different templates of gravitational wave wave forms and produce a template bank. Once we see we’ve found a signal, we run this against the cache of data and the best match gives you back the signal.

It takes slot of time to do this and could be sped up by quite a lot. One way of doing this is through deep learning. We recently published a paper discussing deep learning, a form of AI that uses multiple layers and neurons, and feeding it the raw time series from the detector and receiving and instant yes/no answer as to whether it’s a signal or noise. There’s a lot of potential in this field in applying it towards the search for gravitational waves.

SH: I just had one more question involving the growing collaboration between the physical sciences and computer scientists. It seems like such a natural fit— do you find that we’re moving more towards a spirit of collaboration and cooperation?

HG: Yeah I agree. It would be nice to have more collaboration between the two groups. Right now with machine learning applications in gravitation wave astronomy we are using techniques that have been around for a while. What I’m doing now is using those generative adversarial networks, and this is an idea proposed by Ian Goodfellow a researcher at Google Brain in 2014, so it’s a bit of old news to people in the community along with other techniques like deep learning. I think it’d be good to have more collaboration between the two because that way you can make these discoveries that much more quickly. 

For the latest news, videos, and podcasts in the Sciences Industry, be sure to subscribe to our industry publication.

Follow us on social media for the latest updates in B2B!

Twitter – ScienceMKSL

Facebook – facebook.com/marketscale

LinkedIn – linkedin.com/company/marketscale

Your experts belong here

Every story in MarketScale Sciences starts with a company putting its lab directors, applications scientists, and field specialists on the record. Buyers are already reading this topic. The only question is whose experts they find.

Lab and research buyers verify before they trial, and your scientists give them something credible to verify against.

Book DemoSee how it works15 minutes, straight to a calendar.

About the author

Zach Werblo
Zach WerbloDirector, Platform, BMS CAT
B2B Weekly

The week in Sciences, and sixteen other industries, every Monday.

Ten stories, one-line takes, five minutes. Free.

Sciences: are you visible to AI?

Before they reach out, Sciences buyers ask AI engines which vendors to trust. Explore how your experts, customers, and partners can become useful content for buyers and AI search.

Free Trial

You just read one Sciences expert. Your company is full of them.

This article was produced through MarketScale. The same platform turns your lab directors, applications scientists, and field specialists into the articles, video, and social content Sciences buyers are searching for. Start a free trial and see it with your own people. For qualifying companies, no credit card, no demo required.

NPS +73 · 1,000+ creators · 38+ countries

What your free trial includes

Hands-on access to the MarketScale platform
Media requests to your crowd, remote recording, AI writing tools
No demo required. No credit card.
For qualifying companies. Company confirmation required.

More Sciences Insights

AI shows up in all five tracks at ISPE's 2026 Annual Meeting

AI shows up in all five tracks at ISPE's 2026 Annual Meeting

ISPE's 2026 Annual Meeting and Expo in Washington, DC organizes its program around five tracks running from discovery to governance, with international program committee chair Connie Langer of Pfizer Global Supply and executive chair Jose Caraballo of JCO Global Advisory LLC explaining why AI appears across every track rather than in a standalone one. Deloitte's December 2025 survey of 280 executives frames the mood the program is built for.

  • 01ISPE's 2026 Annual Meeting has no dedicated AI track; program chairs expect AI presentations across all five tracks, from discovery to governance.
  • 02Deloitte's December 2025 survey of 280 biopharma and medtech C-suite executives found more than 75% confident in their own financial outlook but only 41% optimistic about the global economy, the mood the program is built for.
  • 03A staffing firm reports life sciences job openings falling even as digital fluency becomes a required skill, so the upskilling burden lands on the people already employed, which is where the mandatory, university-partnered AI training Connie Langer describes at her company sits.

Sep 30, 2026

Crown Bioscience's San Diego site fits the tumor model to the therapy, not the reverse

Crown Bioscience's San Diego site fits the tumor model to the therapy, not the reverse

Crown Bioscience's San Diego site designs preclinical tumor models to match specific therapies and delivery routes, rather than forcing treatments into standard study designs. It combines custom surgical procedures, cell line-derived xenografts, patient-derived xenografts (including post-treatment models), and biomarker capabilities to generate translational data that can help sponsors decide whether to advance a program.

  • 01Orthotopic brain tumor implantation with tagged models enables tracking of tumor growth in the organ where it naturally occurs, supporting clinically relevant assessment of therapies delivered in that setting.
  • 02Patient-derived xenografts developed from tumors after prior treatment may better reflect progressed disease, helping teams study therapies aimed at patients whose cancer has advanced after earlier treatment.
  • 03Combining biomarker analysis of preclinical model samples with clinical sample testing at one site could make it easier to connect what is measured in animals with what is later measured in patients.

Sep 30, 2026

Clinical data harmonization is the bottleneck for life sciences AI

Clinical data harmonization is the bottleneck for life sciences AI

Life sciences companies moving AI from experimentation to scale keep running into messy trial data. One study can draw on EDC, health records, eCOA tools, wearables and imaging, and data teams at pharma SMEs often spend up to 80% of their time wrangling it. Commentators point to lakehouse architectures and data-cleansing AI agents, though the agents are still at proof of concept.

  • 01Treat automation gains as proof-of-concept for now; evaluate AI/harmonization choices based on data readiness, governance, and whether the architecture supports traceability and regulatory needs.

Sep 26, 2026

Explore More Sciences Insights

Read more expert perspectives from across Sciences.

Browse Sciences Hub

About the Expert

Zach Werblo
Zach Werblo

Director, Platform

BMS CAT

For B2B teams

Your experts could be publishing here

Stories like this one run on content MarketScale captures from real practitioners. See how your team's expertise becomes coverage in Sciences and beyond.

Book a Demo

Or call us. No forms required. We pick up. 214-945-2512