MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750517714 · doi:10.22323/1.301.0789

Characterization of a Maximum Likelihood Gamma-Ray Reconstruction Algorithm for VERITAS

2017· preprint· en· W2750517714 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jodi Christiansen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2017) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Energy Research Scientific Computing CenterU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of ScienceSmithsonian InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCherenkov radiationZenithPhysicsPhotoelectric effectPixelEnergy (signal processing)Gamma rayAlgorithmAngular resolution (graph drawing)Likelihood functionPhotonImage resolutionReconstruction algorithmEvent (particle physics)OpticsDetectorIterative reconstructionComputer scienceAstrophysicsMathematicsEstimation theoryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We characterize the improved angular and energy resolution of a new likelihood gamma-ray reconstruction for VERITAS. The algorithm uses the average photoelectrons stored in templates that are based on simulations of large numbers of showers as a function of 5 gamma-ray parameters: energy, zenith angle, core location (x,y), and depth of first interaction in the atmosphere. Comparing the template predictions of the average photoelectrons in each pixel to observed photoelectrons allows us to calculate the likelihood. By maximizing the likelihood, we find the optimal gamma-ray parameters. The maximum likelihood reconstruction improves on the standard VERITAS analysis which relies on: 1. the weighted average of the axis of elongation in the images to determine the gamma-ray direction and 2. look-up tables that relate the observed energy deposition of Cherenkov photons to the true gamma-ray energy. Not only is the maximum likelihood method more accurate, but it is also not biased by missing pixel information due to the edge of the camera or pixel cleaning. The drawback is that it takes more CPU time (80 ms/event).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2017)Same topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207