An Observational Upper Limit on the Interstellar Number Density of Asteroids and Comets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We derived 90% confidence limits (CLs) on the interstellar number density ( ) of interstellar objects (ISOs; comets and asteroids) as a function of the slope of their size–frequency distribution (SFD) and limiting absolute magnitude. To account for gravitational focusing, we first generated a quasi-realistic ISO population to from the Sun and propagated it forward in time to generate a steady state population of ISOs with heliocentric distance . We then simulated the detection of the synthetic ISOs using pointing data for each image and average detection efficiencies for each of three contemporary solar system surveys—Pan-STARRS1, the Mt. Lemmon Survey, and the Catalina Sky Survey. These simulations allowed us to determine the surveys’ combined ISO detection efficiency under several different but realistic modes of identifying ISOs in the survey data. Some of the synthetic detected ISOs had eccentricities as small as 1.01, which is in the range of the largest eccentricities of several known comets. Our best CL of implies that the expectation that extra-solar systems form like our solar system, eject planetesimals in the same way, and then distribute them throughout the Galaxy, is too simplistic, or that the SFD or behavior of ISOs as they pass through our solar system is far from expectation.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it