Comparison of Deterministic Methods to Estimate Sidereal Rotation Period from Light Curves
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
The importance of determining the sidereal rotation period of an astronomical object on future investigations pertaining to said object has been well documented in the literature. Researchers, however, have differed in their techniques used to estimate and model objects in the space catalog. In this paper, several period-estimation methods will be explored ranging across Fourier and phase-folding techniques. These methods will be tested using ground-based observations of light curve data for various resident space objects that fall under a rigid body context (i.e., asteroids, satellites, probes, rocket bodies) and celestial objects like stars and extrasolar planets. The effect of varying sample size, the inadequacies in unevenly sampled data processing, autonomy of the method, and complexity of parameters are investigated. For the models of artificial space objects that are not open source, a simulation is used to generate synthetic light curves with which all of the above-mentioned techniques are also employed. To account for heterogeneity in method parameters, each technique is tested with a range of values to optimize the rotational period. Results for uniformly sampled asteroid data as well as nonuniformly sampled stellar objects and generic sinusoidal data show variances in accuracy of the methods, but certain methods stand out.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it