Event-by-event direction reconstruction of solar neutrinos in a high light-yield liquid scintillator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The direction of individual <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><a:mrow><a:mmultiscripts><a:mrow><a:mi mathvariant="normal">B</a:mi></a:mrow><a:mprescripts/><a:none/><a:mrow><a:mn>8</a:mn></a:mrow></a:mmultiscripts></a:mrow></a:math> solar neutrinos has been reconstructed using the <d:math xmlns:d="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><d:mrow><d:mi>SNO</d:mi><d:mo>+</d:mo></d:mrow></d:math> liquid scintillator detector. Prompt, directional Cherenkov light was separated from the slower, isotropic scintillation light using time information, and a maximum likelihood method was used to reconstruct the direction of individual scattered electrons. A clear directional signal was observed, correlated with the solar angle. The observation was aided by a period of low primary fluor concentration that resulted in a slower scintillator decay time. This is the first time that event-by-event direction reconstruction in high light-yield liquid scintillator has been demonstrated in a large-scale detector. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".