A test of spatial coincidence between CHIME FRBs and IceCube TeV energy neutrinos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We search for a spatial association between the Canadian Hydrogen Mapping Intensity Experiment (CHIME) FRBs and IceCube neutrinos detected in the TeV energy range, by counting the total number of neutrino-FRB pairs with angular separations of <3 degrees, as well as within the observed neutrino error circle. This number constitutes the total signal events, which is then compared to the total background, corresponding to the null hypothesis of no spatial association. The background was obtained from the total neutrino-FRB matches in off-source angular windows with the same solid angle as the signal window. We do not find any statistically significant excess compared to the background. Therefore, we conclude that there is no evidence for an angular correlation between the IceCube neutrinos in the TeV energy range and CHIME FRBs. For each of these searches, we report 90% Bayesian credible interval upper limits on the observed FRB-induced neutrinos.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".