FOMALHAUT b: INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF THE<i>HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE</i>PUBLIC ARCHIVE DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature and even the existence of a putative planet-mass companion ("Fomalhaut b") to Fomalhaut has been debated since 2008. In the present paper, we reanalyze the multi-epoch ACS/STIS/WFC3 Hubble Space Telescope ( HST ) optical/near-infrared images on which the discovery and some other claims were based. We confirm that the HST images do reveal an object in orbit around Fomalhaut, but the detailed results from our analysis differ in some ways from previous discussions. In particular, we do not confirm flux variability over a two-year interval at 0.6 μm wavelength and we detect Fomalhaut b for the first time at the short wavelength of 0.43 μm. We find that the HST image of Fomalhaut b at 0.8 μm may be extended beyond the point-spread function. We cannot determine from our astrometry if Fomalhaut b will cross or not the dust ring. The optical through mid-infrared spectral energy distribution (SED) of Fomalhaut b cannot be explained as due to direct or scattered radiation from a massive planet. We consider two models to explain the SED: (1) a large circumplanetary disk around an unseen planet and (2) the aftermath of a collision during the past 50–150 yr of two Kuiper-Belt-like objects of radii ∼50 km.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.014 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".