MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886830525 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae5f2

Missing Gamma-Ray Halos and the Need for New Physics in the Gamma-Ray Sky

2018· article· en· W2886830525 on OpenAlexaff
Avery E. Broderick, Paul Tiede, Philip Chang, A. Lamberts, Christoph Pfrommer, Ewald Puchwein, Mohamad Shalaby, Maria Werhahn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsIntergalactic travelAstrophysicsBlazarHaloGamma rayCosmic rayActive galactic nucleusRadio galaxyGalaxyMagnetic fieldGalactic haloQuasarRedshift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An intergalactic magnetic field (IGMF) stronger than 3 × 10 −13 G would explain the lack of a bright, extended degree-scale, GeV-energy inverse Compton component in the gamma-ray spectra of TeV blazars. A robustly predicted consequence of the presence of such a field is the existence of degree-scale GeV-energy gamma-ray halos (gamma-ray bow ties) about TeV-bright active galactic nuclei, corresponding to more than half of all radio galaxies. However, the emitting regions of these halos are confined to and aligned with the direction of the relativistic jets associated with gamma-ray sources. Based on the orientation of radio jets, we align and stack corresponding degree-scale gamma-ray images of isolated Fanaroff–Riley class I and II objects and exclude the existence of these halos at overwhelming confidence, limiting the intergalactic field strength to <10 −15 G for large-scale fields and progressively larger in the diffusive regime when the correlation length of the field becomes small in comparison to 1 Mpc. When combined with prior limits on the strength of the IGMF, this excludes a purely magnetic explanation for the absence of halos. Thus, it requires the existence of novel physical processes that preempt the creation of halos, e.g., the presence of beam-plasma instabilities in the intergalactic medium or a drastic cutoff of the very high-energy spectrum of these sources.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations51
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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