MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391451480 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ced

Where Did the Amaterasu Particle Come From?

2024· article· en· W4391451480 on OpenAlexaff
M. Unger, Glennys R. Farrar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGalaxyAstrophysicsCosmic rayEvent (particle physics)TelescopeAstronomySkyActive galactic nucleus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Telescope Array Collaboration recently reported the detection of a cosmic-ray particle, “Amaterasu,” with an extremely high energy of 2.4 × 10 20 eV. Here we investigate its probable charge and the locus of its production. Interpreted as a primary iron nucleus or slightly stripped fragment, the event fits well within the existing paradigm for UHECR composition and spectrum. Using the most up-to-date modeling of the Galactic magnetic field strength and structure, and taking into account uncertainties, we identify the likely volume from which it originated. We estimate a localization uncertainty on the source direction of 6.6% of 4 π or 2726 deg 2 . The uncertainty of magnetic deflections and the experimental energy uncertainties contribute about equally to the localization uncertainty. The maximum source distance is 8–50 Mpc, with the range reflecting the uncertainty on the energy assignment. We provide sky maps showing the localization region of the event and superimpose the location of galaxies of different types. There are no candidate sources among powerful radio galaxies. An origin in active galactic nuclei or star-forming galaxies is unlikely but cannot be completely ruled out without a more precise energy determination. The most straightforward option is that Amaterasu was created in a transient event in an otherwise undistinguished galaxy.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207