MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046574931 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stu055

A spectral synthesis code for rapid modelling of supernovae

2014· article· en· W2046574931 on OpenAlexaff
Wolfgang Kerzendorf, Stuart Sim

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPython (programming language)Radiative transferSupernovaEjectaSpectral lineStatistical physicsMonte Carlo methodComputational physicsComputational scienceAlgorithmAstrophysicsComputer scienceProgramming languageQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present tardis – an open-source code for rapid spectral modelling of supernovae (SNe). Our goal is to develop a tool that is sufficiently fast to allow exploration of the complex parameter spaces of models for SN ejecta. This can be used to analyse the growing number of high-quality SN spectra being obtained by transient surveys. The code uses Monte Carlo methods to obtain a self-consistent description of the plasma state and to compute a synthetic spectrum. It has a modular design to facilitate the implementation of a range of physical approximations that can be compared to assess both accuracy and computational expediency. This will allow users to choose a level of sophistication appropriate for their application. Here, we describe the operation of the code and make comparisons with alternative radiative transfer codes of differing levels of complexity (syn++, python and artis). We then explore the consequence of adopting simple prescriptions for the calculation of atomic excitation, focusing on four species of relevance to Type Ia SN spectra – Si ii, S ii, Mg ii and Ca ii. We also investigate the influence of three methods for treating line interactions on our synthetic spectra and the need for accurate radiative rate estimates in our scheme.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations182
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207