MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4395958320 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1128

Scaling relations for gamma-ray burst afterglow light curves and centroid motion independent of jet structure and dynamics

2024· article· en· W4395958320 on OpenAlexaff
Hendrik van Eerten, Geoffrey Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsAfterglowAstrophysicsScalingCentroidLight curveJet (fluid)Dynamics (music)Gamma-ray burstProper motionAstronomyGeometryStarsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Models for gamma-ray burst afterglow dynamics and synchrotron spectra are known to exhibit various scale invariances, owing to the scale-free nature of fluid dynamics and the power-law shape of synchrotron spectra. Since GRB 170817A, off-axis jet models including a lateral energy structure in the initial outflow geometry have gained in prominence. Here, we demonstrate how the scale invariance for arbitrary jet structure and dynamical stage can be expressed locally as a function of jet temporal light-curve slope. We provide afterglow flux expressions and demonstrate their use to quickly assess the physical implications of observations. We apply the scaling expressions to the Swift X-ray Telescope sample, which shows a spread in observed fluxes, binned by light-curve slope at time of observation, that increases with increasing light-curve slope. According to the scaling relations, this pattern is inconsistent with a large spread in environment densities if these were the dominant factor determining the variability of light curves. We further show how the late deep Newtonian afterglow stage remains scale-invariant but adds distinct spectral scaling regimes. Finally, we show that for given jet structure a universal curve can be constructed of the centroid offset, image size, and ellipticity (that can be measured using very large baseline interferometry) versus observer angle, in a manner independent of explosion energy and circumburst density. Our results apply to any synchrotron transient characterized by a release of energy in an external medium, including supernova remnants, kilonova afterglows, and soft gamma-repeater flares.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae→French-language works237,207→