An<i>HST</i>Search for Supernovae Accompanying X‐Ray Flashes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the results from a Hubble Space Telescope ACS search for supernovae associated with X-ray flashes 020903, 040701, 040812, and 040916. We find strong evidence that XRF 020903 ( z = 0.25) was associated with a SN 1998bw-like supernova and confirm this using optical spectroscopy at t ~ 25 days. We find no evidence, however, for SN 1998bw-like supernovae associated with the other three events. In the case of XRF 040701 ( z = 0.21), we rule out even a faint supernova similar to SN 2002ap, using template light curves for several local Type Ic supernovae. For the two cases in which the redshift is not known, XRFs 040812 and 040916, we derive robust redshift limits, assuming that they were accompanied by supernovae similar to SN 1998bw, and compare these limits with photometric redshift constraints provided by their host galaxies. We supplement this analysis with results for three additional events (XRFs 011030, 020427, and 030723) and discuss the observed diversity of supernovae associated with X-ray flashes and gamma-ray bursts. We conclude that XRF-SNe exist but can be significantly fainter than SN 1998bw, possibly consistent with the observed spread in local Type Ibc supernovae.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".