MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964212248 · doi:10.22323/1.358.0249

A New View on Auger Data and Cosmogenic Neutrinos in Light of Different Nuclear Disintegration and Air-shower Models

2019· article· en· W2964212248 on OpenAlexaff
Anatoli Fedynitch, J. Heinze, Denise Boncioli, Walter Winter

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2019) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsNeutrinoPhysicsCosmic rayPierre Auger ObservatoryAir showerAstrophysicsAugerFlux (metallurgy)Rigidity (electromagnetism)Nuclear physicsSpectral indexNuclear reactionSpectral lineAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the implications of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Ray (UHECR) data from the Pierre Auger Observatory for potential accelerator candidates and cosmogenic neutrino fluxes for combinations of nuclear disintegration and air-shower models. We exploit the most recently published spectral and mass composition data (2017) with a new, computationally efficient simulation code PriNCe. We extend a systematic framework, which has been previously applied in a combined fit by the Pierre Auger Collaboration, with the cosmological source evolution as an additional free parameter. In this framework, an ensemble of generalized UHECR accelerators is characterized by a universal spectral index (equal for all injection species), a maximal rigidity, and the normalizations for five nuclear element groups. We find that the 2017 data favor a small but constrained contribution of heavy elements (iron) at the source. We demonstrate that the results moderately depend on the nuclear disintegration (PSB, Peanut, or Talys) model, and more strongly on the air-shower (EPOS-LHC, Sibyll-2.3, or QGSjet-II-04) model. Variations of these models result in different source evolutions and spectral indices, limiting the interpretation in terms of a particular class of cosmic accelerators. Better constrained parameters include the maximal rigidity and the mass composition at the source. Hence, the cosmogenic neutrino flux can be robustly predicted. Depending on the source evolution at high redshifts the flux is likely out of reach of future neutrino observatories in most cases, and a minimal cosmogenic neutrino flux cannot be claimed from data without assuming a cosmological distribution of the 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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