MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889460758 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aade4e

VERITAS and Fermi-LAT Observations of TeV Gamma-Ray Sources Discovered by HAWC in the 2HWC Catalog

2018· article· en· W2889460758 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCherenkov radiationPulsarAstroparticle physicsPulsar wind nebulaCrab NebulaSource countsHigh energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The High Altitude Water Cherenkov (HAWC) collaboration recently published their 2HWC catalog, listing 39 very high energy (VHE; >100 GeV) gamma-ray sources based on 507 days of observation. Among these, 19 sources are not associated with previously known teraelectronvolt (TeV) gamma-ray sources. We have studied 14 of these sources without known counterparts with VERITAS and Fermi -LAT. VERITAS detected weak gamma-ray emission in the 1 TeV–30 TeV band in the region of DA 495, a pulsar wind nebula coinciding with 2HWC J1953+294, confirming the discovery of the source by HAWC. We did not find any counterpart for the selected 14 new HAWC sources from our analysis of Fermi -LAT data for energies higher than 10 GeV. During the search, we detected gigaelectronvolt (GeV) gamma-ray emission coincident with a known TeV pulsar wind nebula, SNR G54.1+0.3 (VER J1930+188), and a 2HWC source, 2HWC J1930+188. The fluxes for isolated, steady sources in the 2HWC catalog are generally in good agreement with those measured by imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes. However, the VERITAS fluxes for SNR G54.1+0.3, DA 495, and TeV J2032+4130 are lower than those measured by HAWC, and several new HAWC sources are not detected by VERITAS. This is likely due to a change in spectral shape, source extension, or the influence of diffuse emission in the source region.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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