On the Accuracy of the ALMA Flux Calibration in the Time Domain and across Spectral Windows
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A diverse array of science goals requires accurate flux calibration of observations with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter array (ALMA); however, this goal remains challenging due to the stochastic time-variability of the “grid” quasars ALMA uses for calibration. In this work, we use 343.5 GHz (Band 7) ALMA Atacama Compact Array observations of four bright and stable young stellar objects over seven epochs to independently assess the accuracy of the ALMA flux calibration and to refine the relative calibration across epochs. The use of these four extra calibrators allows us to achieve an unprecedented relative ALMA calibration accuracy of ∼3%. On the other hand, when the observatory calibrator catalog is not up to date, the Band 7 data calibrated by the ALMA pipeline may have a flux calibration poorer than the nominal 10%, which can be exacerbated by weather-related phase decorrelation when self-calibration of the science target is either not possible or not attempted. We also uncover a relative flux calibration uncertainty between spectral windows of 0.8%, implying that measuring spectral indices within a single ALMA band is likely highly uncertain. We thus recommend various methods for science goals requiring high flux accuracy and robust calibration, in particular, the observation of additional calibrators combined with a relative calibration strategy, and observation of solar system objects for high absolute accuracy.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it