MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386742301 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acec3a

Using Giant Pulses to Measure the Impulse Response of the Interstellar Medium

2023· article· en· W4386742301 on OpenAlexafffund
Nikhil Mahajan, M. H. van Kerkwijk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Council for the Arts
KeywordsPhysicsImpulse responseImpulse (physics)DeconvolutionPulsarAstrophysicsComputational physicsOpticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Giant pulses emitted by PSR B1937+21 are bright, intrinsically impulsive bursts. Thus, the observed signal from a giant pulse is a noisy but direct measurement of the impulse response from the ionized interstellar medium. We use this fact to detect 13,025 giant pulses directly in the baseband data of two observations of PSR B1937+21. Using the giant pulse signals, we model the time-varying impulse response with a sparse approximation method, in which the time dependence at each delay is decomposed in Fourier components, thus constructing a wavefield as a function of delay and differential Doppler shift. We find that the resulting wavefield has the expected parabolic shape with several diffuse structures within it, suggesting the presence of multiple scattering locations along the line of sight. We also detect an echo at a delay of about 2.4 ms, over 1.5 times the rotation period of the pulsar, which moves along the trajectory expected from geometry between the two observations. The structures in the wavefield are insufficiently sparse to produce a complete model of the system; hence, the model is not predictive across gaps larger than about the scintillation time. Nevertheless, within its range, it reproduces about 75% of the power of the impulse response, a fraction limited mostly by the signal-to-noise ratio of the observations. Furthermore, we show that by deconvolution, using the model impulse response, we can successfully recover the intrinsic pulsar emission from the observed signal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207