[Link].

com/scientificreports

OPEN Training a convolutional neural

network for exoplanet classification
with transit photometry data
Juliana Wang
The search for exoplanets aims to identify planets with compositions similar to Earth’s, providing
insights into planetary formation and habitability. As a result, efforts to enhance the efficiency of
exoplanet research have led to the development of various detection methods, including transit
photometry. Despite their effectiveness, these methods produce data that require detailed
interpretation, such as identifying dips in light curves. Machine learning has then emerged as a
powerful alternative, offering rapid image classification and the ability to analyze complex datasets in
a short span of time. This paper applies a convolutional neural network (CNN) to the Kepler dataset,
which consists of time-series light curve data from the Kepler Space Telescope, used for detecting
exoplanets through transit events. The final CNN architecture, with hyperparameters set as (300, 200,
200, 100, 100), was identified as the best-performing model after evaluating multiple configurations.
These results highlight the model’s strengths and areas for improvement; while it excels at identifying
false positives (low miss rate of 5%), its higher miss rate for the ‘CONFIRMED’ class (40%) suggests a
need for better detection of true exoplanets. The AUC score of 0.91 further underscores the model’s
strong overall performance.

Keywords Exoplanet detection, Neural networks, Computational astrophysics, Machine learning

In hopes of finding new habitable zones, new forms of life, and to better understand the origins of the universe,
scientists prioritize exoplanet research1. The first confirmed near-Earth-size exoplanet orbiting within the
habitable zone of a Sun-like star is Kepler-452b2. Since the 1990s, researchers have detected thousands of
exoplanets using methods such as radial velocity (measuring Doppler shifts in a star’s spectral lines), transit
photometry (observing dips in a star’s brightness), direct imaging (blocking starlight to capture planet
images), gravitational microlensing (detecting light bending from distant stars), and astrometry (tracking star
movements)3. According to the NASA Exoplanet Archive4, as of January 23, 2025, the numbers of detected
exoplanets are 1,096 with radial velocity, 4,329 with the transit method, 50 with direct imaging, 232 with
microlensing, and 3 with astrometry. Notably, the first exoplanet detected around a Sun-like star, 51 Pegasi
b, was discovered using the radial velocity technique5. However, to process data and draw conclusions more
efficiently, machine learning (ML) algorithms have recently been employed to classify images and visual patterns
from observatories, aiding in the identification of planetary motion. For instance, researchers at Princeton
University developed an artificial intelligence model that predicts the stability of planetary systems by analyzing
orbital configurations, significantly outperforming previous methods: “Our approach significantly outperforms
previous methods based on systems’ angular momentum deficit, chaos indicators, and parameterized fits to
numerical integrations”6. Similarly, a recent study utilized ML techniques to map stable orbital regions around
hypothetical planets, further showcasing the potential of these algorithms in celestial mechanics7.
As a way to organize data and conduct more thorough analysis to obtain results, data classification has been
implemented to achieve this efficacy. With the invention of ML taking place, this set of algorithms have allowed
models to learn through data sets without needing direct instruction, improving its results through training for
a specific amount of time. This specific application of artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning has now been
continuously developed and used throughout studies up until this day, to classify extraterrestrial and interstellar
data in many papers6,8,9. Combining ML and data classification to sort raw exoplanet observation data enhances
the clarity of patterns and characteristics, enabling more efficient model training and observation of processes.
This study utilizes the publicly available Kepler dataset, which contains over 10,000 light curves. Among
these, approximately 2700 entries are labeled as confirmed exoplanets or planet candidates, while the remainder
are classified as false positives or unclassified objects10. The data set can be accessed via the NASA exoplanet
archive11. A neural network (NN) is employed to classify this data and evaluate its potential for identifying future

Polygence, São Paulo, Brazil. email: jewbmewb@[Link]

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:15408 | [Link] 1

[Link]/scientificreports/

exoplanet candidates. While previous studies have demonstrated that NNs achieve high accuracy in exoplanet
classification tasks—such as Jin et al.8, which reported a peak accuracy of 99.79%—this research focuses on
testing different network architectures by varying the number of layers to determine the optimal configuration
for performance.
Additionally, this paper provides a detailed description of the methods and processes used in the experiment,
focusing on exoplanet detection. The following sections examine the neural network’s architecture, configuration,
and training procedures, enabling an evaluation of its performance using tailored metrics. The results section
reports detailed statistics from multiple trials, highlighting the model’s consistency and accuracy. Finally, the
study concludes by demonstrating the neural network’s effectiveness with expansive data sets (Kepler data set),
conveying its potential applications in astrophysics.

Method
Neural networks
For some background on the architecture being implemented, a subset of AI, NNs are computer networks
inspired by the structure of the human brain, with each node (denoted as a circle in Fig. 1) representing a neuron,
allowing it to process information through connections and passing data through layers/filters12. The structure
of an artificial NN further allows this specific algorithm to start learning with no prior information, and instead
gives it an adaptive structure the more time it is trained. Aside from the input and output layers, NNs contain
hidden layers, and especially in the multi-layer perceptron classifier (MLP Classifier), a feedforward NN (a type
of artificial NN) comprises an input layer, hidden layers and an output layer, a more basic neural structure. It
does, however, use sigmoid neurons to process non-linear data efficiently. Sigmoid neurons are components
of neural networks, utilizing the sigmoid activation function to map input values onto a continuous, S-shaped
curve between 0 and 1. It introduces non-linearity into the network, enabling it to model complex relationships
in data13. In the astrophysical context, the ability of NNs to detect faint and complex signals is particularly
advantageous: by analyzing raw light curves from missions like Kepler, the models can identify subtle variations
caused by planetary transits that may be indistinguishable using traditional statistical methods. Additionally,
features like the ReLU (Rectified Linear Unit) activation function, often used in CNN architectures, enable the
model to handle sparse data more effectively, making it robust for the noisy and incomplete datasets common
in astronomical surveys14.
There are certain types of artificial NNs: convolutional neural networks (CNN), and recurrent neural
networks (RNN). The difference between the two models mainly lies in their ability to process data; CNNs are

Fig. 1. Visualization of the CNN architecture of 5 dimensions with layers configured as (300, 200, 200, 100,
100), divided by 20. In the diagram, circles represent the nodes within each layer, and lines represent the
connections between the layers, illustrating the flow of information through the network. Figure generated
through NN-SVG. This architecture was selected based on its superior performance, achieving a mean
accuracy of 92.5% on test data.

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:15408 | [Link] 2

[Link]/scientificreports/

better suited for data with spatial data like images (and provides an advantage to a NN as it delves deeper into
complex features), whereas RNNs are applied for sequential data15. This paper utilizes the MLPClassifier, an
artificial NN. Different variations of layers have been modified within the model (e.g. 2-dimensional and three
dimensional, differing layer numbers) to obtain the most accurate model. The accuracy is then represented
through a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve.
A ROC curve is a visual plot that shows the performance of a binary classifier system (such as a NN ML
algorithm) by showing its accuracy through the area covered under the curve line formed (typically a high recall
rate produces better results). It is calculated by inputting the true positive rate against the false positive rate.
The ROC curve was selected as the primary evaluation metric for this study due to its effectiveness in assessing
the model’s ability to differentiate between exoplanet candidates and non-candidates, even in the presence of
imbalanced data sets like Kepler’s. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) quantifies the overall performance of the
model by measuring the total area under the ROC curve. A higher AUC value (closer to 1) indicates better model
performance, as it reflects a higher true positive rate and a lower false positive rate.

Data definitions
Having established the functioning process of this model, the data definitions used for this study are described
below.
For the architecture of our NN, hyperparameters (the layer and dimension) of our NN are modified by
trial to identify the optimum number of layers for best accuracy, and the model type that has the highest area
coverage under the ROC curve, and satisfactory recall and precision rates (≥ 0.6) are analyzed. The Kepler data
set contains 50 columns and 9564 rows. However, only ‘CONFIRMED’ and ‘FALSE POSITIVE’ data points are
used to test out the model, meaning that rows with ‘CANDIDATE’ status are eliminated, which fall under the
koi_disposition row. (koi_disposition—the literature of an exoplanet, can be ‘CANDIDATE’, ‘FALSE POSITIVE’,
‘NOT DISPOSITIONED’ or ‘CONFIRMED’11). To check for definitions of terms in the Kepler Data set, refer to
Table 1 below:
Furthermore, empty rows are deleted and 55,188 data points are fed to the network. The data points fed to
the NN were numbers under columns ‘koi_disposition’, ‘koi_period’, ‘koi_impact’, ‘koi_duration’, ‘koi_depth’,
‘koi_prad’, ‘koi_teq’, ‘koi_insol’,‘koi_model_snr’,‘koi_steff ’, ‘koi_slogg’,‘koi_srad’ (12 columns), and a total of 4599
rows, leading to a total of 55,188 data points.
These columns were classified as “Important” in the algorithm —(columns that did not seem to be relevant
to the discovery process were dropped) as these features were chosen to ensure the model captures the most
relevant aspects of exoplanetary characteristics (e.g. features such as koi_duration, which reflects the transit
length of a planet). As mentioned initially, these patterns are a representation of planetary behavior (dip/
change in light), and the numbers allow the machine to understand what values fall under the categorization of
“CONFIRMED” and “FALSE POSITIVE”. By tracking these two classes, it will help depict the accuracy of the
model due to its ability to differentiate the estimations with the results of the labeled data set. Furthermore, due
to the presence of some empty rows, instead of filling them up they are removed with the function df_important.
dropna, leaving 4599 rows out of the total 9564, which corresponds to about 48% of the Kepler data set. It
still provides a substantial amount of data for analysis, amounting to 55,188 data points. The sample size is
considered adequate for the analysis as it encompasses a sufficient number of data points to capture significant
patterns and facilitate generalization to unseen data. Furthermore, given the inherent structure of the data set, an
increase in the sample size would likely result in only marginal improvements in model performance.

Process
The study’s MLP Classifier is built using the scikit-learn Python library (version 1.17 for supervised neural
network models17). The activation function used in the nodes of the model is the ReLU function (used to
introduce nonlinearity in a NN), and the solver used was the Adam solver (computationally efficient optimizer
suited for problems large in data)18. The model is trained on two arrays: one representing the input features (n_
samples × n_features) and the other representing the output labels (n_samples). The input features correspond

Name Definition (derived from Caltech’s exoplanet archive website)

‘koi_disposition’ values in the data set that are under CANDIDATE, FALSE POSITIVE, NOT DISPOSITIONED or CONFIRMED
‘koi_period’ (days) Time in between planetary transits measured in days
‘koi_impact’ (Dimensionless) Visible distance between the star’s surface and its exoplanet
‘koi_duration’ (hours) The duration of the observed planet’s transit in hours
‘koi_depth’ (ppm) Dip in stellar light/Dim in stellar lightness. Typically computed from data, in parts per million
‘koi_prad’ (Earth radii) Radius of the observed planet measured in Earth radii
‘koi_teq’ (Kelvin) Equilibrium temperature of the planet measured in Kelvins
‘koi_insol’ (Earth fluxes) Incident stellar flux received by the planet (amount of starlight the planet receives), relative to what Earth receives
‘Koi_model_snr’ (dimensionless) Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the model’s match to the light curve data for a specific planet candidate
‘koi_steff ’ (Kelvin) Stellar effective temperature of the star in Kelvins
‘koi_slogg’(log10 (cms −2
) Surface gravity of the star (in base-10)
‘koi_srad’ (solar radii) Photospheric radius of the star in solar radii

Table 1. Definitions of terms used in the Kepler Data set16.

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:15408 | [Link] 3

[Link]/scientificreports/

to the characteristics of the data (e.g., koi_period, koi_impact, etc.), while the output labels represent the class
(e.g., exoplanet candidate or non-candidate). After training, the model is tested, and results are plotted using a
library from scikit-learn (version 3.3 for Model Evaluation on the SciKit website19) to generate the ROC curve.
After the output is displayed, the results from the end of the trial are plotted on a table. Each trial is run 3
times; Since the performance across the 3 runs did not exhibit significant variability, running the model 3 times
was deemed sufficient to obtain a reliable estimate of its performance. This approach ensures statistical stability
and avoids excessive computational overhead, which could lead to unnecessary delays.
In the data collection, the following metrics were used to evaluate the performance of the model:
Precision (measures the accuracy of predictions):
T rueP ositives
(1)
T rueP ositives + F alseP ositives

And to calculate the recall (accounts for the total amount of predictions):
T rueP ositives
(2)
T rueP ositives + F alseN egatives

The layers are modified throughout trials (starting by (50,50)), and follows the visual structure in Fig. 1. In Table
2 (below), summary statistics for all the final set of used features are included below (data collection will be based
off of this configuration). Through an observation of the summary statistics, it can be determined how well the
model performs and enable model comparison by providing a standardized view of their performance, such as
average accuracy. Units in each row are presented relative to the definitions provided in Table 1, and allow for
scale interpretation, highlighting important changes such as changes in starlight for ‘koi_depth’. Unusual values
and outliers will also display data and model issues.

Data collection table

16 trials were conducted to figure out the most accurate layer configuration.
The trial starts with two dimensions. The first three trials had layer numbers that added up to 100, and to
avoid overfitting instead of adding a larger layer amount another dimension would be included. Trials 4–7 are
then increased by increments of 100, along with trials 8–11 (layer amounts would start from 100 and gradually
increase until a fallout). The rest of the layers only have the layer amount adjusted in a limited number of
dimensions to avoid overfitting caused by excessive layer and dimension numbers.

Results
Building on these findings, trial 15 exhibits the highest AUC percentage in the ROC curve of 0.91 (see Fig. 2) and
achieves precision and recall rates above the 0.6 threshold. These metrics can be better understood when framed in
the context of exoplanet research needs; High AUC suggests that the model is effective at distinguishing between
‘CONFIRMED’ and ‘FALSE POSITIVE’ cases, which is critical for prioritizing telescope time. For instance,
when deciding which candidates to follow up with more resource-intensive observations, a high AUC ensures
that the top-ranked candidates are likely to be true positives. However, the precision/recall values ≥ 0.6 highlight
that while the model performs reasonably well, there is room for improvement in identifying candidates with
weaker or unusual signals. Other models such as those with a configuration of 4 dimensions, despite performing
similarly well (AUC percentage of 0.9, refer to Figs. 3 and 4), did not meet requirements for precision and recall
metrics, which shows that the model has area for improvement and training. This underlines the importance of
not solely relying on ML models but instead using them as part of a broader candidate validation pipeline. By
refining the model to further improve recall (e.g., reducing the 40% miss rate for ‘CONFIRMED’ planets), its
practical application in exoplanet research (like TESS and PLATO) could be greatly enhanced.
Although Trials 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 14 demonstrate high AUC values in the ROC plot, their precision and recall
rates do not consistently meet the 0.6 threshold. Despite Trial 11–15 retaining a similar AUC percentage, on Trial
16 the area coverage starts to fall off, potentially meaning that the ML algorithm might have picked up noise
from the input data. Therefore, in these trials CNN configurations with 3 dimensions (featuring higher layer sizes
such as (400, 400)), 4 dimensions (with smaller layer sizes such as (100, 100, 100, 100)), and 5 dimensions (with
moderate layer sizes such as (300, 200, 200, 200, 100)) generally demonstrate stronger performance. Anything

Index koi_period koi_impact koi_duration koi_depth koi_prad koi_teq koi_insol koi_model_snr koi_steff koi_slogg koi_srad
25% 2.24 0.22 2.53 184.60 1.52 559.00 23.35 14.70 5320.00 4.21 0.83
50% 8.51 0.58 3.91 507.45 2.68 928.00 176.51 30.75 5779.50 4.44 1.00
75% 36.18 0.92 6.43 2775.10 25.45 1496.25 1201.17 123.10 6126.00 4.54 1.37
count 7316.00 7016.00 7316.0 7016.00 7016.00 7016.00 7057.00 7016.00 7016.00 7016.00 7016.00
max 1071.23 100.81 138.54 1,541,400.00 200,346.00 14,667.00 10,947,554.55 9054.70 15,896.00 5.28 229.91
mean 58.82 0.79 5.87 30,620.12 129.97 1148.59 8485.67 326.63 5727.71 4.30 1.78
min 0.24 0.0 0.11 0.80 0.08 92.00 0.02 0.00 2661.00 0.05 0.12
std 121.08 3.67 6.97 92,873.98 3519.62 898.33 160,221.87 891.67 825.22 0.44 6.20

Table 2. Summary statistics for all final set of used features.

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:15408 | [Link] 4

[Link]/scientificreports/

Fig. 2. Roc Curve Output of Trial 15.

Fig. 3. ROC curve for hyperparameter configuration (300,200,200,100). AUC of 0.9, highlighting its
performance under a larger network depth.

Fig. 4. ROC curve for hyperparameter configuration (100,100,100,100). AUC of 0.9, demonstrates its
comparative performance despite lower network complexity.

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:15408 | [Link] 5

[Link]/scientificreports/

Fig. 5. ROC curve for hyperparameter configuration (500,500). AUC of 0.89, reflects reduced performance
with a compact network.

Trial # Amount of layers Recall-FALSE POSITIVE Precision-FALSE POSITIVE Recall-CONFIRMED Precision-CONFIRMED ROC curve area coverage
1 (50,50) 0.65 0.97 0.95 0.57 0.87
2 (70,30) 0.95 0.80 0.50 0.84 0.89
3 (40,60) 0.72 0.95 0.92 0.61 0.88
4 (200,200) 0.68 0.94 0.91 0.58 0.88
5 (300,300) 0.97 0.78 0.45 0.88 0.91
6 (400,400) 0.61 0.97 0.96 0.55 0.90
7 (500,500) 0.77 0.92 0.86 0.64 0.89
8 (100,100,100) 1.00 0.70 0.12 0.98 0.88
9 (200,200,200) 0.98 0.76 0.34 0.91 0.91
10 (300,300,300) 0.94 0.78 0.44 0.77 0.87
11 (400,400,400) 0.81 0.91 0.84 0.69 0.90
12 (100,100,100,100) 0.92 0.83 0.60 0.79 0.90
13 (200,200,200,100) 0.93 0.83 0.62 0.80 0.89
14 (300,200,200,100) 0.67 0.96 0.94 0.58 0.90
15 (300,200,200,100,100) 0.95 0.83 0.60 0.85 0.91
16 (300,200,200,200,200) 0.82 0.88 0.76 0.67 0.87

Table 3. Trial number alongside with trial’s result.

slightly different in both dimensions and layers might cause overfitting (the picking up of noise) and anything
lower did not seem to perform as high as trials 11–15 in terms of area coverage in ROC Curve (as shown in Fig. 3,
despite having more layers than the model in Fig. 4, its AUC percentage did not differ significantly.). Additionally,
when compared with simpler configurations (such as those with two dimensions), the AUC percentage slightly
falls (drops to 0.89), and precision and recall rates still fall under the set threshold (refer to Fig. 5). The trial 15
model exhibited a 40% miss rate for the “CONFIRMED” class and a 5% miss rate for the “FALSE POSITIVE”
class, while misclassifying 15% of “CONFIRMED” instances and 17% of “FALSE POSITIVE” cases. Compared
to existing methods, this model’s false-positive rate of 17% demonstrates a potential for improvement. However,
leveraging the AUC of 0.91, the model can prioritize candidates more accurately, potentially reducing wasted
telescope time spent on false positives. To address the limitations, the model could also prioritize candidates
by ranking them based on confidence scores derived from the classification probabilities, and employ cross-
validation techniques, such as stratified k-fold cross-validation, to assess the model’s robustness, mitigate data
imbalance effects, and systematically optimize hyperparameters for improved performance.
In Table 3 (below), statistics from the trials of data collection are included—as seen, Trial 15 meets all given
criteria compared to the other runs.

Evaluations and limitations

The study’s results, while promising with an AUC score of 0.91, revealed limitations that warrant further
discussion—leading to the evaluation of some characteristics and limitations the model has. Notably, the
model exhibited a 40% miss rate for the ‘CONFIRMED’ class and misclassification rates of 15% and 17% for the

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:15408 | [Link] 6

[Link]/scientificreports/

‘CONFIRMED’ and ‘FALSE POSITIVE’ classes, respectively. These issues may stem from data imbalance, where
the data set contains more false positives than confirmed planets, which can skew the model’s predictions. For
reliable automation, particularly in applications where high confidence is essential, precision and recall levels
exceeding 90% tend to be necessary. The 40% miss rate for the ‘CONFIRMED’ class in this study (equivalent to a
recall of ~ 60%) falls significantly below this threshold, indicating the need for improvements before automation
can be considered viable. Additionally, potential overfitting due to the chosen CNN architecture (300, 200, 200,
100, 100) might hinder its ability to generalize to unseen data. The removal of 52% of rows with missing values
could have further introduced bias; if the missing data were not random—such as certain types of exoplanets
being more likely to have incomplete information—this could distort the model’s learning process and reduce
the representativeness of the data set. To address these limitations, future work could incorporate more data
sets from missions like TESS or Gaia, employ systematic hyperparameter tuning (e.g., grid search or Bayesian
optimization), and explore advanced architectures such as Transformers or ensemble methods to improve
classification accuracy.
Moreover, recent studies have demonstrated the growing role of machine learning in exoplanet detection and
characterization, providing valuable context for evaluating the limitations of this work. Tamayo et al.6 introduced
the Stability of Planetary Orbital Configurations Klassifier (SPOCK), which trained on 100,000 three-planet
systems to classify the long-term stability of compact multi planet systems. In contrast, this study utilized a
data set of 58,188 data points from the Kepler mission, where 52% of rows were removed due to missing values,
potentially introducing bias and reducing representativeness. Compared to Tamayo et al.6, the smaller data set
and focus on classification rather than stability analysis may have limited the scope of this study. Similarly, Jin et
al.8 achieved high classification accuracies—up to 99.79%—using supervised learning methods such as decision
trees and neural networks on the Kepler data set, whereas this study employed a CNN model with an AUC score
of 0.91 but faced challenges such as data imbalance and misclassification rates of up to 17%, and missing up
to 40% of class ‘CONFIRMED’ planets. In contrast to the machine learning for cross-correlation spectroscopy
(MLCCS) approach introduced by Nath-Ranga et al.9, which leverages weak assumptions to enhance detection
sensitivity for faint exoplanets, this study faced notable limitations in its classification of exoplanets using a
CNN. The mentioned study employed perceptrons and one-dimensional CNNs to effectively identify molecular
signatures in spectral data, achieving up to 77 times greater detection rates compared to traditional signal-to-
noise ratio (S/N) metrics. While this study focuses solely on classification tasks using a CNN architecture, these
comparisons highlight how some of the limitations encountered here, such as data set representativeness and
model sensitivity, could be addressed.
The present model also did not make use of automated feature importance ranking techniques such as
Random Forests; feature selection was performed manually to prioritize interpretability and computational
efficiency. This approach demonstrates that even basic machine learning techniques, with carefully chosen
features, can contribute to exoplanet classification and makes this method accessible to researchers with limited
computational resources. Future work could, however, incorporate feature importance methods to allow for
a more systematic identification of which features contribute most to the classification process, potentially
revealing interactions or patterns not immediately apparent through manual selection. Jin et al.8 successfully
employed Random Forests to achieve high classification accuracy on exoplanet datasets, and applying this
method in future work could refine the feature selection process and improve the overall performance of the
model, addressing the low recall rates that were observed during trials.
Lastly, even though prior works8,9 have demonstrated high classification accuracies using neural networks
and alternative machine learning methods, this study provides a unique contribution by focusing on
hyperparameter optimization and class-specific performance metrics when applied to raw light curve data
from the Kepler mission. By addressing challenges such as data imbalance and misclassification rates, this work
highlights practical limitations and opportunities for improving CNN-based exoplanet detection models in real-
world scenarios. While the current study did not focus explicitly on edge cases such as planets with unusual
orbital properties or weak transit signals, the model’s ability to capture nonlinear relationships suggests that it
may outperform traditional linear classifiers in these scenarios. Future work could incorporate datasets with
labeled edge cases to evaluate this capability. Additionally, retraining the model on more diverse datasets could
enhance its sensitivity to weak or atypical signals. Our approach simplifies the detection pipeline by applying
CNNs directly to the raw time-series data, demonstrating the potential of deep learning techniques in exoplanet
detection without relying on extensive preprocessing steps.

Conclusion
To summarize the findings, in this study, an MLPClassifier, a type of Fully-Connected Neural Network, was
employed to classify exoplanets and optimize hyperparameters. Using NASA’s Kepler dataset11 with over 10,000
candidates, the model achieved an AUC score of 0.91 and precision and recall rates of 0.6, when set and tested
with optimal hyperparameters of (300, 200, 200, 100, 100) layers. While not fully optimized for autonomous
exoplanet classification, the model demonstrates its potential for professional workflows, such as serving as a
pre-screening tool for large-scale missions like TESS, where manual inspection of light curves is impractical.
This direct application of CNNs to raw light curve data could complement traditional methods like BLENDER
or SPOCK. For instance, Tamayo et al.6 classified the long-term stability of planetary systems, while Nath-Ranga
et al.9 achieved higher detection sensitivity using CNN for spectroscopic data. Building on these approaches, this
study highlights the promise and challenges of deep learning in exoplanet detection. Expanding the model to
incorporate diverse datasets from missions like TESS or Gaia could improve its generalizability, paving the way
for scalable, hybrid human-AI workflows to advance exoplanet discovery.
Looking forward, the applicability of this method could be applied to other data sets, such as those from
the TESS space telescope20. Given the similarities between Kepler and TESS—both missions aim to detect

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:15408 | [Link] 7

[Link]/scientificreports/

exoplanets in the habitable zones of their stars using similar instruments, with the latter focusing on stars closer
to Earth—TESS could benefit greatly from this approach. Additionally, the continued discovery of new candidate
exoplanets by TESS further supports the potential for this method to enhance exoplanet classification. Moreover,
the forthcoming PLATO mission21, set to launch in 2026, aims to provide another vast data set for exoplanet
research. This method could be instrumental in analyzing data from future large-scale transit surveys, making it
a valuable tool for upcoming astronomical missions.

Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article and its tables.

Received: 14 September 2024; Accepted: 15 April 2025

References
1. Brennan, P. Why Do Scientists Search for Exoplanets? Here Are 7 Reasons. Exoplanet Exploration. Retrieved February 3, 2024, from​
h​t​t​p​s​:​​/​/​e​x​o​pl​​ ​a​n​e​t​s​​.​n​a​s​a​.​​g​o​v​/​n​​e​w​s​/​1​6​​1​0​/​w​hy​ ​​-​d​o​-​s​c​​i​en ​ ​t​i​​s​t​s​-​s​ea​​ ​r​c​h​-​f​​o​r​-​e​x​o​​p​l​a​n​e​t​s-​ ​h​e​r​e​-​a​r​e​-7​ ​-​r​e​a​s​o​n​s​/ (2019).
2. Jenkins, J. M. et al. Discovery and validation of Kepler-452b: A 1.6 R⊕ super earth exoplanet in the habitable zone of a G2 star.
Astron. J. 150(2), 56. [Link] (2015).
3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Exoplanet Science Strategy (The National Academies Press, 2018).
4. NASA Exoplanet Archive. Exoplanet and candidate statistics. Retrieved January 23, 2025, from ​h​t​t​p​s​:​​/​/​e​x​o​p​​l​a​n​e​ta​ ​​r​c​h​i​v​e​​.​ip ​ ​a​c​​.​c​a​l​t​e​​
c​h​.​e​d​u​​/​d​o​c​s​/​​c​o​u​n​t​s​_d ​ ​e​t​a​i​l​.​h​t​m​l (n.d.).
5. Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. A Jupiter-mass companion to a solar-type star. Nature 378(6555), 355–359. [Link]
(1995).
6. Tamayo, D. et al. Predicting the long-term stability of compact multiplanet systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117(31), 18194–18205.
[Link] (2020).
7. Pinheiro, T. F. L. L., Sfair, R., & Ramon, G. Machine learning approach for mapping the stable orbits around planets. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2412.04568. (2024).
8. Jin, Y., Yang, L. & Chiang, C.-E. Identifying exoplanets with machine learning methods: A preliminary study. Int. J. Cybern. Inform.
11(1/2), 32–42 (2022).
9. Nath-Ranga, R., Absil, O., Christiaens, V. & Garvin, E. O. Machine learning for exoplanet detection in high-contrast spectroscopy.
Astron. Astrophys. 689, A142. [Link] (2024).
10. Borucki, W. J. et al. Kepler planet-detection mission: introduction and first results. Science 327, 977–980. ​h​t​t​p​s​:​/​/​d​o​i​.​or​ ​g​/​1​0​.​1​1​2​6/​ ​
s​c​i​e​n​c​e​.​11​ ​8​5​4​0​2​​​​ (2010).
11. NASA Exoplanet Archive. Kepler Object of Interest (KOI) table. Retrieved March 7, 2025, from ​h​t​t​p​s​:​​/​/​e​x​o​p​​l​a​n​e​t​a​​r​c​h​i​v​e​​.​i​p​a​c​​.​c​a​l​t​
e​​c​h​.​ed ​ ​u​​/​c​g​i​-​b​​in​ ​/​T​b​​l​V​i​e​w​/​​n​p​h​-​t​b​​l​V​i​e​w​?​​a​p​p​=​E​xo ​ ​T​b​l​s​&​c​o​n​f​i​g​=​k​o​i (n.d.).
12. Park, Y.-S., & Lek, S. Chapter 7—artificial neural networks: multilayer perceptron for ecological modeling. In Developments in
Environmental Modelling (ed. Jørgense, S. E.), Vol. 28, 123–140. ISSN 0167-8892. ISBN 9780444636232. ​h​t​t​p​s​:​/​/​d​oi​ ​.​o​r​g​/​1​0​.​10​ ​1​6​/​B​
9​7​8​-​0-​ ​4​4​4​-​6​3​6​2​3-​ ​2​.​0​0​0​0​7​-​4​​​​ ​h​t​t​p​s​:​​/​/​w​w​w​.​​s​c​i​e​n​c​e​d​i​r​e​c​​t​.​co ​ ​m​​/​s​c​i​e​n​​ce​ ​/​a​r​t​​i​c​l​e​/​p​​i​i​/​B​9​7​8​04​ ​4​4​6​3​6​2​3​2​00​ ​0​0​7​4 (Elsevier, 2016).
13. Chen, Y. et al. Chapter 2—Fundamentals of neural networks. In AI Computing Systems (eds Chen, Y. et al.) 17–51 ​h​t​t​p​s​:​//​ ​d​o​i​.​o​r​g​/​
1​0​.​1​0​1​6​/​B​9​78​ ​-​0​-​3​2​-​3​9​53​ ​9​9​-​3​.​0​0​0​08​ ​-​1​​​​ (2024).
14. Ahmed, Z., D'Amico, S., Hu, R., & Damiano, M. Exoplanet detection from starshade images using convolutional neural networks.
SPIE. Retrieved from ​h​t​t​p​s​:​/​/​s​l​a​b​​.​s​ta​ ​n​f​​o​r​d​.​e​du ​​ ​/​s​i​t​​e​s​/​g​/​f​​i​l​e​s​/​s​​b​i​y​b​j​2​​5​2​0​1​/​f​i​
​ l​e​s​/​​m​e​di​ ​a​/​​f​i​l​e​/​ah
​​ ​m​e​d​_​s​p​i​e​20​ ​2​3​_​s​u​b​m​i​tt​ ​e​d​.​p​d​f (2023).
15. Raj, R. & Kos, A. An improved human activity recognition technique based on convolutional neural network. Sci. Rep. 13, 22581.
[Link] (2023).
16. NASA. Data columns in Kepler Objects of Interest Table. NASA Exoplanet Archive. Retrieved March 3, 2024, from ​ht​ ​t​p​s​:​​/​/​e​x​o​p​​l​a​n​
e​t​a​​r​c​h​i​v​e​​.​i​p​a​c​.​c​a​l​t​e​​c​h​.e​ ​d​u​​/​d​o​c​s​/A ​​ ​P​I​_​k​​e​p​c​a​n​d​​i​d​a​t​e​_​​c​o​l​u​m​n​​s​.​h​t​m​l (2021).
17. SciKit Learn. 1.17. Neural network models (supervised)—scikit-learn 1.4.1 documentation. Scikit-learn. Retrieved March 3, 2024,
from ​h​t​t​p​s​:​​/​/​s​c​i​k​​i​t​-​l​e​a​r​n​.​o​r​g​​/​s​ta​ ​b​​l​e​/​m​o​d​​ul​ ​e​s​/​n​​e​u​r​a​l​_​​n​e​t​w​o​r​k​s_​ ​s​u​p​e​r​v​i​s​ed ​ ​.​h​t​m​l (n.d.).
18. Kingma, Diederik, P. & Ba, J. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. CoRR abs/1412.6980, n. pag (2014).
19. SciKit Learn. 3.3. Metrics and scoring: quantifying the quality of predictions. Scikit-learn. Retrieved March 3, 2024, from ​h​t​t​p​s​:/​​​ ​​/​s​c​i​
k​i​​t​-l​ ​e​a​r​​n​.​o​​​r​g​/​s​t​a​​b​​l​e​/​m​​o​d​u​​l​e​s​​/​mo ​ ​​d​e​​l​_​e​v​a​lu
​ ​a​​t​i​o​n​.​​h​tm ​ ​​l​#​r​o​c​-​m​e​t​r​i​c​s (n.d.).
20. Ricker, G. R. et al. The transiting exoplanet survey satellite. J. Astron. Telescopes Instrum. Syst. 1(1), 014003. ​h​t​t​ps​ ​:​/​/​d​o​i​.​o​rg​ ​/​1​0​.​1​1​1​
7​/1​ ​.​j​a​t​i​s​.​1​.1​ ​.​0​1​4​0​0​3​​​​ (2014).
21. Rauer, H. et al. The PLATO 2.0 mission. Exp. Astron. 38, 249–330. [Link] (2014).

Acknowledgements
Graduate from Carnegie Mellon---Husni A. For mentoring and teaching me

Author contributions
Juliana Wang Wrote the paper, the code, and generated the table and graphs in the paper. Code was based off of
Neural Network libraries. Taught and guided by mentor from Carnegie Mellon Husni A.

Declarations

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.W.
Reprints and permissions information is available at [Link]/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:15408 | [Link] 8

[Link]/scientificreports/

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives

4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in
any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide
a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have
permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence
and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to
obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit ​h​t​t​p​:​//​ ​c​r​e​a​t​i​v​e​co
​ ​m​m​o​
n​s​.​o​r​g/​ ​l​i​c​e​n​s​e​s​/b
​ ​y​-​n​c​-​n​d​/​4​.​0​/​​​​.​​

© The Author(s) 2025

Scientific Reports | (2025) 15:15408 | [Link] 9