MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063291404 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/1/12

LOWER LIMITS ON THE ANISOTROPY OF THE EXTRAGALACTIC GAMMA-RAY BACKGROUND IMPLIED BY THE 2FGL AND 1FHL CATALOGS

2014· article· en· W2063291404 on OpenAlexaff
Avery E. Broderick, Christoph Pfrommer, Ewald Puchwein, Philip Chang, Kendrick M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsAnisotropyFermi Gamma-ray Space TelescopeSkyIsotropyRedshiftPoint sourcePopulationGamma rayAstronomyGalaxyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In principle, the angular anisotropy in the extragalactic gamma-ray background (EGRB) places severe constraints upon putative populations of unresolved gamma-ray point sources. Existing estimates of the EGRB anisotropy have been constructed by excising known point sources, e.g., taken from the First or Two Year Fermi -LAT Source Catalog (1FGL or 2FGL, respectively) and statistically analyzing the residual gamma-ray sky maps. We perform an independent check of the EGRB anisotropy limits by comparing the values obtained from the 1FGL-masked sky maps to the signal implied by sources that lie below the 1FGL detection threshold in the more sensitive 2FGL and 1FHL (First Fermi -LAT catalog of >10 GeV sources). As such, our analysis provides an internal consistency check of implications for source counts and spectral index distributions of gamma-ray bright active galactic nuclei obtained from Fermi -LAT data. Based on this, we find evidence for substantially larger anisotropies than those previously reported at energies above 5 GeV, where BL Lac objects are likely to provide the bulk of their contribution to the EGRB. This uncertainty in the EGRB anisotropy cautions against using it as an independent constraint for the high-redshift gamma-ray universe. Moreover, this would suggest that contrary to previous claims, smooth extensions of the resolved point-source population may be able to simultaneously explain both the isotropic and anisotropic components of the EGRB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207