MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399597953 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7255

Exploring Waveform Variations among Neutron Star Ray-tracing Codes for Complex Emission Geometries

2024· article· en· W4399597953 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Devarshi Choudhury, Anna L. Watts, Alexander J. Dittmann, M. Coleman Miller, Sharon M. Morsink, Tuomo Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, Slavko Bogdanov, Sébastien Guillot, M. T. Wolff, Zaven Arzoumanian

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNuclear Safety and Security CommissionEuropean Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsNeutron starRay tracing (physics)RADIUSWaveformPulsarAstrophysicsMillisecond pulsarTracingObserver (physics)Computational physicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pulse profile modeling (PPM), the technique used to infer mass, radius, and geometric parameters for rotation-powered millisecond pulsars using data from the Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER), relies on relativistic ray-tracing of thermal X-ray photons from hot spots on the neutron star surface to the observer. To verify our ray-tracing codes we have in the past conducted cross tests for simple hot spot geometries, focusing primarily on the implementation of the spacetime model. In this paper, we present verification for test problems that explore the more complex hot spot geometries that are now being employed in the NICER PPM analyses. We conclude that the accuracy of our computed waveforms is in general sufficiently high for analyses of current NICER data sets. We have however identified some extreme configurations where extra care may be needed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→