MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963908257 · doi:10.22323/1.358.0754

Maximum likelihood spectral fitting and its application to EBL constraints

2019· article· en· W2963908257 on OpenAlexafffund
S. O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2019) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of ScienceSmithsonian InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsExtragalactic background lightRedshiftCosmic microwave backgroundCherenkov radiationCOSMIC cancer databaseCosmic background radiationAstrophysicsBlazarOpticsNormalization (sociology)Cosmic rayGamma rayDetectorGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extragalactic background light (EBL) is the second-most-intense form of cosmic background light (the first being the cosmic microwave background) and contains the redshifted optical radi- ation, from infra-red to ultraviolet, emitted across all epochs, making it of great cosmological in- terest. While direct measurements of the EBL are hampered by foreground contamination, obser- vations of VHE emission from distant sources can be used to obtain indirect measurements of the EBL. In this work a maximum-likelihood fit is applied to the energy spectra of blazars observed by VERITAS, an array of ground-based imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes sensitive to very-high-energy (VHE; E>100 GeV) gamma rays. Using theoretical models of the EBL shape and intensity, the EBL normalization is treated as a free parameter, allowing for model-dependent constraints to be obtained. Details of this maximum-likelihood analysis and preliminary model- dependent constraints on the EBL, are presented.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2019)Same topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207