MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PHotometry Assisted Spectral Extraction (PHASE) and identification of SNLS supernovae

2008· article· en· W3102011902 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. Baumont, C. Balland, P. Astier, J. Guy, D. Hardin, D. A. Howell, C. Lidman, M. Mouchet, R. Pain, Nicolas Regnault

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotometry (optics)SupernovaExtraction (chemistry)PhysicsIdentification (biology)AstrophysicsAstronomyChemistryChromatographyBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

\n Aims. We present new extraction and identification techniques for supernova (SN) spectra developed within the Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS) collaboration.\n Methods. The new spectral extraction method takes full advantage of photometric information from the Canada-France-Hawaï telescope (CFHT) discovery and reference images by tracing the exact position of the supernova and the host signals on the spectrogram. When present, \nthe host \nspatial profile is measured on deep multi-band reference images and is\nused to model the host contribution to the full (supernova + host) signal. The supernova is modelled as a Gaussian function of width equal to the seeing. \nA $\\chi^2$ minimisation provides the flux of each component in each pixel of the \n2D spectrogram.\nFor a host-supernova separation greater than $\\ga$1 pixel, the two components are recovered separately and we do not use a spectral template in contrast to more standard analyses. This new procedure permits a clean extraction of the supernova separately from the host in about 70% of the 3rd year ESO/VLT spectra of the SNLS. A new supernova identification method is also proposed. It uses the SALT2 spectrophotometric template to combine the photometric and spectral data. A galaxy template is allowed for spectra for which a separate extraction of the supernova and the host was not possible.\n Results. These new techniques have been tested against more standard extraction and identification procedures. They permit a secure type and redshift\ndetermination in about 80% of cases. The present paper illustrates their performances on a few sample spectra.\n

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207