Towards open and reproducible multi-instrument analysis in gamma-ray astronomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis and combination of data from different gamma-ray instruments involves the use of collaboration proprietary software and case-by-case methods. The effort of defining a common data format for high-level data, namely event lists and instrument response functions (IRFs), has recently started for very-high-energy gamma-ray instruments, driven by the upcoming Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA). In this work we implemented this prototypical data format for a small set of MAGIC, VERITAS, FACT, and H.E.S.S. Crab nebula observations, and we analyzed them with the open-source gammapy software package. By combining data from Fermi -LAT, and from four of the currently operating imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes, we produced a joint maximum likelihood fit of the Crab nebula spectrum. Aspects of the statistical errors and the evaluation of systematic uncertainty are also commented upon, along with the release format of spectral measurements. The results presented in this work are obtained using open-access on-line assets that allow for a long-term reproducibility of the results.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".