Measurements of the time-dependent cosmic-ray Sun shadow with seven years of IceCube data: Comparison with the Solar cycle and magnetic field models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observations of the time-dependent cosmic-ray Sun shadow have been proven as a valuable diagnostic for the assessment of solar magnetic field models. In this paper, seven years of IceCube data are compared to solar activity and solar magnetic field models. A quantitative comparison of solar magnetic field models with IceCube data on the event rate level is performed for the first time. Additionally, a first energy-dependent analysis is presented and compared to recent predictions. We use seven years of IceCube data for the moon and the Sun and compare them to simulations on data rate level. The simulations are performed for the geometrical shadow hypothesis for the moon and the Sun and for a cosmic-ray propagation model governed by the solar magnetic field for the case of the Sun. We find that a linearly decreasing relationship between Sun shadow strength and solar activity is preferred over a constant relationship at the $6.4\ensuremath{\sigma}$ level. We test two commonly used models of the coronal magnetic field, both combined with a Parker spiral, by modeling cosmic-ray propagation in the solar magnetic field. Both models predict a weakening of the shadow in times of high solar activity as it is also visible in the data. We find tensions with the data on the order of $3\ensuremath{\sigma}$ for both models, assuming only statistical uncertainties. The magnetic field model CSSS fits the data slightly better than the PFSS model. This is generally consistent with what is found previously by the Tibet $\mathrm{AS}\text{\ensuremath{-}}\ensuremath{\gamma}$ Experiment; a deviation of the data from the two models is, however, not significant at this point. Regarding the energy dependence of the Sun shadow, we find indications that the shadowing effect increases with energy during times of high solar activity, in agreement with theoretical predictions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".