MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2540838192 · doi:10.1063/1.4969019

Estimate of the Fermi large area telescope sensitivity to gamma-ray polarization

2017· article· en· W2540838192 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolarization (electrochemistry)TelescopeFermi Gamma-ray Space TelescopeDetectorBlazarPulsarVelaSystematic error

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although not designed primarily as a polarimeter, the Fermi-Large Area Telescope (LAT) has the potential to detect high degrees of linear polarization from some of the brightest gamma-ray sources. To achieve the needed accuracy in the reconstruction of the event geometry, low-energy (≤ 200 MeV) events converting in the silicon detector layers of the LAT tracker have to be used. We present preliminary results of the ongoing effort within the LAT collaboration to measure gamma-ray polarization. We discuss the statistical and systematic uncertainties affecting such a measurement. We show that a 5σ minimum detectable polarization (MDP) of ≈ 30 − 50% could be within reach for the brightest gamma-ray sources as the Vela and Crab pulsars and the blazar 3C 454.3, after 10 years of observation. To estimate the systematic uncertainties, we stack bright AGN, and use this stack as a test source. LAT sensitivity to polarization is estimated comparing the data to a simulation of the expected unpolarized emission of the stack. We measure a 5σ sensitivity limit corresponding to a polarization degree of ≈ 37%. This is in agreement with a purely statistical estimate, suggesting that the systematic errors are likely to be small compared to the statistical ones.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207