Solar data uncertainty impacts on MCMC methods for r-process nucleosynthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent work, we developed a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) procedure to predict the ground state masses capable of forming the observed Solar r-process rare-earth abundance peak. By applying this method to nucleosynthesis calculations which make use of distinct astrophysical conditions and comparing our results to the latest precision mass measurements, we are able to shed light on the conditions/masses capable of producing a rare-earth peak which matches Solar data. Here we examine how our mass predictions change when using a few different sets of r-process Solar abundance residuals that have been reported in the literature. We explore how the differing error estimates of these Solar evaluations propagate through the Markov Chain Monte Carlo to our mass predictions. We find that Solar data which reports the rare-earth peak to have its highest abundance at mass number A = 162 can require distinctly different mass predictions from data with the peak centered at A = 164. Nevertheless, we find that two important general conclusions from past work, regarding the inconsistency of ‘cold’ astrophysical outflows with current mass measurements and the need for local stability at N = 104 in ‘hot’ scenarios, remain robust in the face of differing Solar data evaluations. Additionally, we show that the masses our procedure finds capable of producing a peak at A < 164 are not in line with the latest precision mass measurements.
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 | 0.016 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".