Simulating cosmic rays in clusters of galaxies – III. Non-thermal scaling relations and comparison to observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complementary views of galaxy clusters in the radio synchrotron, hard X-ray inverse Compton, and high-energyγ-ray regimes are critical in calibrating them as high-precision cosmological probes. We present predictions for scaling relations between cluster mass and these non-thermal observables. To this end, we use high-resolution simulations of a sample of galaxy clusters spanning a mass range of almost two orders of magnitudes, and follow selfconsistent cosmic ray physics on top of the radiative hydrodynamics. We model relativistic electrons that are accelerated at cosmological structure formation shocks and those that are produced in hadronic interactions of cosmic rays with ambient gas protons. Calibrating the magnetic fields of our model with Faraday rotation measurements, the synchrotron emission of our relativistic electron populations matches the radio synchrotron luminosities and morphologies of observed giant radio halos and mini-halos surprisingly well. Using the complete sample of the brightest X-ray clusters observed by ROSAT in combination with ourγ-ray scaling relation, we predict GLAST that will detect about ten clusters allowing for Eddington bias due to the scatter in the scaling relation. The expected brightestγ-ray clusters are Ophiuchus,
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".