MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415090731 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.10640

A candidate to the long sought optical counterpart to the Rapid Burster in the bulge fossil fragment Liller 1

2025· preprint· en· W4415090731 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina Pallanca, F. R. Ferraro, B. Lanzoni, Mario Cadelano, C. O. Heinke, M. van den Berg, J. Homan, Chiara Crociati, Sébastien Guillot

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHubble space telescopePosition (finance)Star (game theory)Identification (biology)BulgeTelescopeOptical telescope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the possible identification of the optical counterpart of the Rapid Burster MXB 1730-335 in the stellar system Liller 1. The identification was performed by taking advantage of a set of images acquired with the Hubble Space Telescope/Advanced Camera for Surveys in the optical band, and with the Gemini South Telescope in the near-infrared. The analysis of these images revealed the presence of a star with a position possibly compatible with the X-ray and radio band coordinates of the Rapid Burster, and showing significant optical variability. According to its location in the color-magnitude diagram, the candidate companion appears to belong to the young (~ 1-2 Gyr old) super-solar metallicity ([M/H]= +0.3) sub-population recently discovered in Liller 1. We discuss the main characteristics of the candidate counterpart and the Rapid Burster binary system as derived from the available data, also highlighting the need for further coordinated observations to solidly confirm their association and better clarify their physical properties.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207