Inferring the morphology of the Galactic Center excess with Gaussian processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Descriptions of the Galactic Center using Fermi gamma-ray data have so far modeled the Galactic Center excess (GCE) as a template with fixed spatial morphology or as a linear combination of such templates. Although these templates are informed by various physical expectations, the morphology of the excess is a priori unknown. For the first time, we describe the GCE using a flexible, nonparametric machine learning model---the Gaussian process (GP). We assess our model's performance on synthetic data, demonstrating that the model can recover the templates used to generate the data. We then fit the Fermi data with our model in a single energy bin from 2--20 GeV (leaving a spectral GP analysis of the GCE for future work) using a variety of template models of diffuse gamma-ray emission to quantify our fits' systematic uncertainties associated with diffuse emission modeling. We interpret our best-fit GP in terms of GCE templates consisting of an Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) squared template and a bulge component to determine which bulge models can best describe the fitted GP and to what extent the best-fit GP is described better by an NFW squared template versus a bulge template. The best-fit GP contains morphological features that are typically not associated with traditional GCE studies. These include a localized bright source at around $(\ensuremath{\ell},b)=(20\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{},0\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{})$ and a diagonal arm extending Northwest from the Galactic Center. In spite of these novel features, the fitted GP is explained best by a template-based model consisting of the bulge presented in Coleman et al. (2020) and a squared NFW component. Our results suggest that the physical interpretation of the GCE in terms of stellar bulge and NFW-like components is highly sensitive to the assumed morphologies, background models, and the region of the sky used for inference.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".