adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: GECAM Localization of High-energy Transients and the Systematic Error
Authors: Yi Zhao, Wang-Chen Xue, Shao-Lin Xiong, Yuan-Hao Wang, Jia-Cong Liu, Qi Luo, Yan-Qiu Zhang, Jian-Chao Sun, Xiao-Yun Zhao, Ce Cai, Shuo Xiao, Yue Huang, Xiao-Bo Li, Zhen Zhang, Jin-Yuan Liao, Sheng Yang, Rui Qiao, Dong-Ya Guo, Chao Zheng, Qi-Bin Yi, Sheng-Lun Xie, Zhi-Wei Guo, Chao-Yang Li, Chen-Wei Wang, Wen-Jun Tan, Yue Wang, Wen-Xi Peng, Shi-Jie Zheng, Jian-Jian He, Ping Wang, Jin Wang, Xiang Ma, Xin-Ying Song, Hong-Mei Zhang, Bing Li, Peng Zhang, Hong Wu, Yan-Qi Du, Jing Liang, Guo-Ying Zhao, Xin-Qiao Li, Xiang-Yang Wen, Zheng-Hua An, Xi-Lei Sun, Yan-Bing Xu, Fan Zhang, Da-Li Zhang, Ke Gong, Ya-Qing Liu, Xiao-Hua Liang, Xiao-Jing Liu, Min Gao, Jin-Zhou Wang, Li-Ming Song, Gang Chen, Ke-Ke Zhang, Xing-Bo Han, Hai-Yan Wu, Tai Hu, Hao Geng, Fang-Jun Lu, Shu Zhang, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Gao-Peng Lu, Ming Zeng, Heng Yu
Figure caption: GECAM localization for GRB 220511A (Steps 1 to 3 in Section 3). (a) The light curve of GRD # 21 high gain which contains the majority of net (burst) counts. The vertical magenta dashed lines and blue shaded regions are the manually selected source interval and background interval for localization analysis. The horizontal red line represents the background and its uncertainty. (b) The localization’s credible region with fixed templates (see Table 4) for all 25 GRDs. The solid magenta [green] [blue] contour represents the location’s 68.27% [95.45%] [99.73%] HPD statistical credible region. The purple cross is the location center while the red star is the reference position. (c) The refined spectral fitting result for the location center of the FIX localization with model cutoffpl. The three GRDs (# 04, 11, and 12) within 60° from the location center of FIX and with detection significance >5σ are used for the spectral fitting. (d) The consistency check of the measured data and the expected counts (the sum of estimated background and expected source counts). The source contribution is derived from the refined spectrum. The detectors with deviation <3σ are used for localization with the refined spectral template. The black triangle markers are the expected counts for each detector. The red circles and error bars are the measured counts and 3σ data errors for each detector. The blue lines show the selected detectors. (e) The location’s HPD credible region with the refined template for selected detectors. The dashed magenta [green] [blue] contour is the 68.27% [95.45%] [99.73%] total location error (see Section 5).
Paper: GECAM Localization of High-energy Transients and the Systematic Error
Authors: Yi Zhao, Wang-Chen Xue, Shao-Lin Xiong, Yuan-Hao Wang, Jia-Cong Liu, Qi Luo, Yan-Qiu Zhang, Jian-Chao Sun, Xiao-Yun Zhao, Ce Cai, Shuo Xiao, Yue Huang, Xiao-Bo Li, Zhen Zhang, Jin-Yuan Liao, Sheng Yang, Rui Qiao, Dong-Ya Guo, Chao Zheng, Qi-Bin Yi, Sheng-Lun Xie, Zhi-Wei Guo, Chao-Yang Li, Chen-Wei Wang, Wen-Jun Tan, Yue Wang, Wen-Xi Peng, Shi-Jie Zheng, Jian-Jian He, Ping Wang, Jin Wang, Xiang Ma, Xin-Ying Song, Hong-Mei Zhang, Bing Li, Peng Zhang, Hong Wu, Yan-Qi Du, Jing Liang, Guo-Ying Zhao, Xin-Qiao Li, Xiang-Yang Wen, Zheng-Hua An, Xi-Lei Sun, Yan-Bing Xu, Fan Zhang, Da-Li Zhang, Ke Gong, Ya-Qing Liu, Xiao-Hua Liang, Xiao-Jing Liu, Min Gao, Jin-Zhou Wang, Li-Ming Song, Gang Chen, Ke-Ke Zhang, Xing-Bo Han, Hai-Yan Wu, Tai Hu, Hao Geng, Fang-Jun Lu, Shu Zhang, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Gao-Peng Lu, Ming Zeng, Heng Yu
Figure caption: (a) The HPD cumulative confidence level distribution (i.e., the fraction of simulated bursts within the cumulative probability N% for truth position < the corresponding confidence level N%). The dashed line represents the one-to-one line. The confidence level points are from 10% to 90% in steps of 10% as well as 68.27%, 95.45%, and 99.73%. (b) The probability distribution of estimation of systematic error for the Bayesian approach and our confidence-based approach to estimation using the simulated bursts only consist of statistical error. (c) The probability distribution of estimation of systematic uncertainties for our confidence-based approach to estimation using the simulated bursts only contains a statistical error. But the “true position” used for calculating cumulative probability adjusts to a “fake position” (R.A. = 119.°23, decl. = +71.°42), which deviates by 6° from the true position. (d) The distribution of simulated number of bursts in each confidence level bin for different systematic error values. (e) Inspection of an individual simulated burst. The magenta and blue lines mark 68.27% credible regions of statistical uncertainty and total (statistical + systematic) uncertainty, respectively. The purple cross, red star, and green hexagon represent the location center, true position, and fake position, respectively.
Paper: GECAM Localization of High-energy Transients and the Systematic Error
Authors: Yi Zhao, Wang-Chen Xue, Shao-Lin Xiong, Yuan-Hao Wang, Jia-Cong Liu, Qi Luo, Yan-Qiu Zhang, Jian-Chao Sun, Xiao-Yun Zhao, Ce Cai, Shuo Xiao, Yue Huang, Xiao-Bo Li, Zhen Zhang, Jin-Yuan Liao, Sheng Yang, Rui Qiao, Dong-Ya Guo, Chao Zheng, Qi-Bin Yi, Sheng-Lun Xie, Zhi-Wei Guo, Chao-Yang Li, Chen-Wei Wang, Wen-Jun Tan, Yue Wang, Wen-Xi Peng, Shi-Jie Zheng, Jian-Jian He, Ping Wang, Jin Wang, Xiang Ma, Xin-Ying Song, Hong-Mei Zhang, Bing Li, Peng Zhang, Hong Wu, Yan-Qi Du, Jing Liang, Guo-Ying Zhao, Xin-Qiao Li, Xiang-Yang Wen, Zheng-Hua An, Xi-Lei Sun, Yan-Bing Xu, Fan Zhang, Da-Li Zhang, Ke Gong, Ya-Qing Liu, Xiao-Hua Liang, Xiao-Jing Liu, Min Gao, Jin-Zhou Wang, Li-Ming Song, Gang Chen, Ke-Ke Zhang, Xing-Bo Han, Hai-Yan Wu, Tai Hu, Hao Geng, Fang-Jun Lu, Shu Zhang, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Gao-Peng Lu, Ming Zeng, Heng Yu
Figure caption: GECAM localization for TGF 20210820. (a) The light curve and time–energy scatter plot of all 25 detectors. (b) The light curve and time–energy scatter plot of GRD # 02, which contains the majority of net counts in the discovery bin. The black marker shows the normal events of GRDs. The dashed red line is the background and the dashed fuchsia line is the source interval. (c) Sky map of the location. The solid fuchsia [blue] [green] contour is the location’s 68.27% [95.45%] [99.73%] HPD statistical credible region. The geocenter is inside the 95.45% credible region, which indicates its HPD cumulative probability is <95.45%. The dashed purple curves are 400/800/1200 km equidistant lines from the GECAM nadir. The red cross and black circle marker are the location center and geocenter, respectively. The blue shaded area indicates Earth’s apparent radius.
Paper: GECAM Localization of High-energy Transients and the Systematic Error
Authors: Yi Zhao, Wang-Chen Xue, Shao-Lin Xiong, Yuan-Hao Wang, Jia-Cong Liu, Qi Luo, Yan-Qiu Zhang, Jian-Chao Sun, Xiao-Yun Zhao, Ce Cai, Shuo Xiao, Yue Huang, Xiao-Bo Li, Zhen Zhang, Jin-Yuan Liao, Sheng Yang, Rui Qiao, Dong-Ya Guo, Chao Zheng, Qi-Bin Yi, Sheng-Lun Xie, Zhi-Wei Guo, Chao-Yang Li, Chen-Wei Wang, Wen-Jun Tan, Yue Wang, Wen-Xi Peng, Shi-Jie Zheng, Jian-Jian He, Ping Wang, Jin Wang, Xiang Ma, Xin-Ying Song, Hong-Mei Zhang, Bing Li, Peng Zhang, Hong Wu, Yan-Qi Du, Jing Liang, Guo-Ying Zhao, Xin-Qiao Li, Xiang-Yang Wen, Zheng-Hua An, Xi-Lei Sun, Yan-Bing Xu, Fan Zhang, Da-Li Zhang, Ke Gong, Ya-Qing Liu, Xiao-Hua Liang, Xiao-Jing Liu, Min Gao, Jin-Zhou Wang, Li-Ming Song, Gang Chen, Ke-Ke Zhang, Xing-Bo Han, Hai-Yan Wu, Tai Hu, Hao Geng, Fang-Jun Lu, Shu Zhang, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Gao-Peng Lu, Ming Zeng, Heng Yu
Figure caption: GECAM localization for GRB 220511A (Step 4 in Section 3). (a) The spectral fitting for the accurate position based on the reference location. (b) The consistency check of the measured data and the expected counts (the sum of estimated background and expected source counts). The source contribution is derived from this spectral fitting results. (c) The location’s HPD credible region with this spectral template for selected detectors. (d) To illustrate that using all detectors will introduce localization derivation, the location’s credible region with this spectral parameter for all 25 GRDs is shown. The GECAM localization result of 23 bright GRBs, SGRs, and SFLs is shown in Table 6.
Paper: GECAM Localization of High-energy Transients and the Systematic Error
Authors: Yi Zhao, Wang-Chen Xue, Shao-Lin Xiong, Yuan-Hao Wang, Jia-Cong Liu, Qi Luo, Yan-Qiu Zhang, Jian-Chao Sun, Xiao-Yun Zhao, Ce Cai, Shuo Xiao, Yue Huang, Xiao-Bo Li, Zhen Zhang, Jin-Yuan Liao, Sheng Yang, Rui Qiao, Dong-Ya Guo, Chao Zheng, Qi-Bin Yi, Sheng-Lun Xie, Zhi-Wei Guo, Chao-Yang Li, Chen-Wei Wang, Wen-Jun Tan, Yue Wang, Wen-Xi Peng, Shi-Jie Zheng, Jian-Jian He, Ping Wang, Jin Wang, Xiang Ma, Xin-Ying Song, Hong-Mei Zhang, Bing Li, Peng Zhang, Hong Wu, Yan-Qi Du, Jing Liang, Guo-Ying Zhao, Xin-Qiao Li, Xiang-Yang Wen, Zheng-Hua An, Xi-Lei Sun, Yan-Bing Xu, Fan Zhang, Da-Li Zhang, Ke Gong, Ya-Qing Liu, Xiao-Hua Liang, Xiao-Jing Liu, Min Gao, Jin-Zhou Wang, Li-Ming Song, Gang Chen, Ke-Ke Zhang, Xing-Bo Han, Hai-Yan Wu, Tai Hu, Hao Geng, Fang-Jun Lu, Shu Zhang, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Gao-Peng Lu, Ming Zeng, Heng Yu
Figure caption: The distribution of the probability of systematic uncertainties and number of bursts in each confidence level bin for a real observation of GECAM. (a) The probability distribution of systematic uncertainties for FIX localization. The dashed red curve shows a Gaussian fitting (μ = 4.18, σ = 0.39). (b) The probability distribution of systematic uncertainties for RFD localization. The dashed red curve shows a Gaussian fitting (μ = 2.62, σ = 0.58). (c) The probability distribution of systematic uncertainties for APR localization. We do not fit this distribution due to the few significant data points. The distribution of the number of bursts in each confidence level bin for different systematic error values with (d) FIX, (e) RFD, and (f) APR localization is shown in the lower panels.
Paper: GECAM Localization of High-energy Transients and the Systematic Error
Authors: Yi Zhao, Wang-Chen Xue, Shao-Lin Xiong, Yuan-Hao Wang, Jia-Cong Liu, Qi Luo, Yan-Qiu Zhang, Jian-Chao Sun, Xiao-Yun Zhao, Ce Cai, Shuo Xiao, Yue Huang, Xiao-Bo Li, Zhen Zhang, Jin-Yuan Liao, Sheng Yang, Rui Qiao, Dong-Ya Guo, Chao Zheng, Qi-Bin Yi, Sheng-Lun Xie, Zhi-Wei Guo, Chao-Yang Li, Chen-Wei Wang, Wen-Jun Tan, Yue Wang, Wen-Xi Peng, Shi-Jie Zheng, Jian-Jian He, Ping Wang, Jin Wang, Xiang Ma, Xin-Ying Song, Hong-Mei Zhang, Bing Li, Peng Zhang, Hong Wu, Yan-Qi Du, Jing Liang, Guo-Ying Zhao, Xin-Qiao Li, Xiang-Yang Wen, Zheng-Hua An, Xi-Lei Sun, Yan-Bing Xu, Fan Zhang, Da-Li Zhang, Ke Gong, Ya-Qing Liu, Xiao-Hua Liang, Xiao-Jing Liu, Min Gao, Jin-Zhou Wang, Li-Ming Song, Gang Chen, Ke-Ke Zhang, Xing-Bo Han, Hai-Yan Wu, Tai Hu, Hao Geng, Fang-Jun Lu, Shu Zhang, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Gao-Peng Lu, Ming Zeng, Heng Yu
Figure caption: Schematic diagram illustrating different views of the GECAM payload. 25 GRDs are labeled from G01 to G25 and eight CPDs are labeled from C01 to C08. The payload comprises a detector dome and an electronic box (EBOX). Most of the detectors (all 25 GRDs and six CPDs) are assembled in the detector dome, and two CPDs are installed on the +X side of the payload. In the payload coordinate system, the +X [+Y] [+Z] axis is aligned with the pointing direction of G18 [G24] [G01]. The pointing directions of the 25 GRDs are listed in Table 2.
Paper: GECAM Localization of High-energy Transients and the Systematic Error
Authors: Yi Zhao, Wang-Chen Xue, Shao-Lin Xiong, Yuan-Hao Wang, Jia-Cong Liu, Qi Luo, Yan-Qiu Zhang, Jian-Chao Sun, Xiao-Yun Zhao, Ce Cai, Shuo Xiao, Yue Huang, Xiao-Bo Li, Zhen Zhang, Jin-Yuan Liao, Sheng Yang, Rui Qiao, Dong-Ya Guo, Chao Zheng, Qi-Bin Yi, Sheng-Lun Xie, Zhi-Wei Guo, Chao-Yang Li, Chen-Wei Wang, Wen-Jun Tan, Yue Wang, Wen-Xi Peng, Shi-Jie Zheng, Jian-Jian He, Ping Wang, Jin Wang, Xiang Ma, Xin-Ying Song, Hong-Mei Zhang, Bing Li, Peng Zhang, Hong Wu, Yan-Qi Du, Jing Liang, Guo-Ying Zhao, Xin-Qiao Li, Xiang-Yang Wen, Zheng-Hua An, Xi-Lei Sun, Yan-Bing Xu, Fan Zhang, Da-Li Zhang, Ke Gong, Ya-Qing Liu, Xiao-Hua Liang, Xiao-Jing Liu, Min Gao, Jin-Zhou Wang, Li-Ming Song, Gang Chen, Ke-Ke Zhang, Xing-Bo Han, Hai-Yan Wu, Tai Hu, Hao Geng, Fang-Jun Lu, Shu Zhang, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Gao-Peng Lu, Ming Zeng, Heng Yu
Figure caption: The distribution of the angular separation between the reference positions and the location centers of FIX (green), RFD (blue), and APR (red) localization.
Paper: GECAM Localization of High-energy Transients and the Systematic Error
Authors: Yi Zhao, Wang-Chen Xue, Shao-Lin Xiong, Yuan-Hao Wang, Jia-Cong Liu, Qi Luo, Yan-Qiu Zhang, Jian-Chao Sun, Xiao-Yun Zhao, Ce Cai, Shuo Xiao, Yue Huang, Xiao-Bo Li, Zhen Zhang, Jin-Yuan Liao, Sheng Yang, Rui Qiao, Dong-Ya Guo, Chao Zheng, Qi-Bin Yi, Sheng-Lun Xie, Zhi-Wei Guo, Chao-Yang Li, Chen-Wei Wang, Wen-Jun Tan, Yue Wang, Wen-Xi Peng, Shi-Jie Zheng, Jian-Jian He, Ping Wang, Jin Wang, Xiang Ma, Xin-Ying Song, Hong-Mei Zhang, Bing Li, Peng Zhang, Hong Wu, Yan-Qi Du, Jing Liang, Guo-Ying Zhao, Xin-Qiao Li, Xiang-Yang Wen, Zheng-Hua An, Xi-Lei Sun, Yan-Bing Xu, Fan Zhang, Da-Li Zhang, Ke Gong, Ya-Qing Liu, Xiao-Hua Liang, Xiao-Jing Liu, Min Gao, Jin-Zhou Wang, Li-Ming Song, Gang Chen, Ke-Ke Zhang, Xing-Bo Han, Hai-Yan Wu, Tai Hu, Hao Geng, Fang-Jun Lu, Shu Zhang, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Gao-Peng Lu, Ming Zeng, Heng Yu
Figure caption: The distribution of the incidence zenith/azimuth angle for the reference locations of 23 bright bursts (red crosses) in GECAM payload coordinates.
Paper: GECAM Localization of High-energy Transients and the Systematic Error
Authors: Yi Zhao, Wang-Chen Xue, Shao-Lin Xiong, Yuan-Hao Wang, Jia-Cong Liu, Qi Luo, Yan-Qiu Zhang, Jian-Chao Sun, Xiao-Yun Zhao, Ce Cai, Shuo Xiao, Yue Huang, Xiao-Bo Li, Zhen Zhang, Jin-Yuan Liao, Sheng Yang, Rui Qiao, Dong-Ya Guo, Chao Zheng, Qi-Bin Yi, Sheng-Lun Xie, Zhi-Wei Guo, Chao-Yang Li, Chen-Wei Wang, Wen-Jun Tan, Yue Wang, Wen-Xi Peng, Shi-Jie Zheng, Jian-Jian He, Ping Wang, Jin Wang, Xiang Ma, Xin-Ying Song, Hong-Mei Zhang, Bing Li, Peng Zhang, Hong Wu, Yan-Qi Du, Jing Liang, Guo-Ying Zhao, Xin-Qiao Li, Xiang-Yang Wen, Zheng-Hua An, Xi-Lei Sun, Yan-Bing Xu, Fan Zhang, Da-Li Zhang, Ke Gong, Ya-Qing Liu, Xiao-Hua Liang, Xiao-Jing Liu, Min Gao, Jin-Zhou Wang, Li-Ming Song, Gang Chen, Ke-Ke Zhang, Xing-Bo Han, Hai-Yan Wu, Tai Hu, Hao Geng, Fang-Jun Lu, Shu Zhang, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Gao-Peng Lu, Ming Zeng, Heng Yu
Figure caption: Geographic distribution of the GECAM nadir points of three bright TGFs (red crosses), which are used for localization analysis.
Paper: GECAM Localization of High-energy Transients and the Systematic Error
Authors: Yi Zhao, Wang-Chen Xue, Shao-Lin Xiong, Yuan-Hao Wang, Jia-Cong Liu, Qi Luo, Yan-Qiu Zhang, Jian-Chao Sun, Xiao-Yun Zhao, Ce Cai, Shuo Xiao, Yue Huang, Xiao-Bo Li, Zhen Zhang, Jin-Yuan Liao, Sheng Yang, Rui Qiao, Dong-Ya Guo, Chao Zheng, Qi-Bin Yi, Sheng-Lun Xie, Zhi-Wei Guo, Chao-Yang Li, Chen-Wei Wang, Wen-Jun Tan, Yue Wang, Wen-Xi Peng, Shi-Jie Zheng, Jian-Jian He, Ping Wang, Jin Wang, Xiang Ma, Xin-Ying Song, Hong-Mei Zhang, Bing Li, Peng Zhang, Hong Wu, Yan-Qi Du, Jing Liang, Guo-Ying Zhao, Xin-Qiao Li, Xiang-Yang Wen, Zheng-Hua An, Xi-Lei Sun, Yan-Bing Xu, Fan Zhang, Da-Li Zhang, Ke Gong, Ya-Qing Liu, Xiao-Hua Liang, Xiao-Jing Liu, Min Gao, Jin-Zhou Wang, Li-Ming Song, Gang Chen, Ke-Ke Zhang, Xing-Bo Han, Hai-Yan Wu, Tai Hu, Hao Geng, Fang-Jun Lu, Shu Zhang, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Gao-Peng Lu, Ming Zeng, Heng Yu
Figure caption: GECAM localization results of TGF 210520. (a) The light curve and time–energy scatter plot of all 25 detectors. (b) The light curve and time–energy scatter plot of GRD # 16, which contains the majority of net counts in the discovery bin. (c) Sky map of the location. The captions are the same as for Figure 7.
Paper: GECAM Localization of High-energy Transients and the Systematic Error
Authors: Yi Zhao, Wang-Chen Xue, Shao-Lin Xiong, Yuan-Hao Wang, Jia-Cong Liu, Qi Luo, Yan-Qiu Zhang, Jian-Chao Sun, Xiao-Yun Zhao, Ce Cai, Shuo Xiao, Yue Huang, Xiao-Bo Li, Zhen Zhang, Jin-Yuan Liao, Sheng Yang, Rui Qiao, Dong-Ya Guo, Chao Zheng, Qi-Bin Yi, Sheng-Lun Xie, Zhi-Wei Guo, Chao-Yang Li, Chen-Wei Wang, Wen-Jun Tan, Yue Wang, Wen-Xi Peng, Shi-Jie Zheng, Jian-Jian He, Ping Wang, Jin Wang, Xiang Ma, Xin-Ying Song, Hong-Mei Zhang, Bing Li, Peng Zhang, Hong Wu, Yan-Qi Du, Jing Liang, Guo-Ying Zhao, Xin-Qiao Li, Xiang-Yang Wen, Zheng-Hua An, Xi-Lei Sun, Yan-Bing Xu, Fan Zhang, Da-Li Zhang, Ke Gong, Ya-Qing Liu, Xiao-Hua Liang, Xiao-Jing Liu, Min Gao, Jin-Zhou Wang, Li-Ming Song, Gang Chen, Ke-Ke Zhang, Xing-Bo Han, Hai-Yan Wu, Tai Hu, Hao Geng, Fang-Jun Lu, Shu Zhang, Shuang-Nan Zhang, Gao-Peng Lu, Ming Zeng, Heng Yu
Figure caption: GECAM localization results of TGF 220112. (a) The light curve and time–energy scatter plot of all 25 detectors. (b) The light curve and time–energy scatter plot of GRD # 25, which contains the majority of net counts in the discovery bin. (c) Sky map of the location. The captions are the same as for Figure 7.
Paper: Prospects for Ray-tracing Light Intensity and Polarization in Models of Accreting Compact Objects Using a GPU
Authors: Monika A. Moscibrodzka, Aristomenis I. Yfantis
Figure caption: Intensity maps and intensity profiles of plasma around a black hole event horizon (the central depression in intensity is the shadow of a black hole). Top panels show a semianalytic model of advection-dominated accretion flow seen at a viewing angle of 60°. Lower panels show a model of an accretion flow produced in 3D GRMHD simulations with viewing angle of 20°. Both images are made at an observer’s frequency of 230 GHz, which corresponds to the current observing frequency of EHT. The images in the left panels have resolutions of 4096 × 4096 pixels. The right panels show intensity profiles based on images with high and low resolution. High-resolution images are obviously better at capturing details such as the photon rings.
Paper: Prospects for Ray-tracing Light Intensity and Polarization in Models of Accreting Compact Objects Using a GPU
Authors: Monika A. Moscibrodzka, Aristomenis I. Yfantis
Figure caption: GPU acceleration speedup factor as a function of image resolution. Results are shown for both types of models and both CPU+GPU sets. The CPU+GPU set No. 2, compared to set No. 1, has by design less double precision computing capability.
Paper: Neural Stellar Population Synthesis Emulator for the DESI PROVABGS
Authors: K. J. Kwon, ChangHoon Hahn, Justin Alsing
Figure caption: Comparison of galaxy properties inferred using the emulator and PROVABGS-FSPS. From the left to right panels, we compare the total stellar mass (﹩\mathrm{log}{M}_{* }﹩), star formation rate averaged over the past 1 Gyr (﹩\mathrm{log}{\overline{\mathrm{SFR}}}_{1\mathrm{Gyr}}﹩), mass-weighted metallicity (﹩\mathrm{log}{Z}_{\mathrm{MW}}﹩), and mass-weighted age (t age,MW). These galaxy properties are computed using the PROVABGS SPS model based on the inferred posteriors of PROVABGS model parameters. We present the medians of inferred posteriors in the scatter points and mark the 1σ range with the error bars. For all samples, the posterior medians derived using the emulator agree with PROVABGS-FSPS within σ fsps, and σ emul. is consistent with σ fsps. As illustrated, there is an excellent agreement between the posteriors derived using the emulator and PROVABGS-FSPS.
Paper: Young Stellar Objects, Accretion Disks, and Their Variability with Rubin Observatory LSST
Authors: R. Bonito, L. Venuti, S. Ustamujic, P. Yoachim, R. A. Street, L. Prisinzano, P. Hartigan, M. G. Guarcello, K. G. Stassun, T. Giannini, E. D. Feigelson, A. Caratti o Garatti, S. Orlando, W. I. Clarkson, P. McGehee, E. C. Bellm, J. E. Gizis
Figure caption: Rate of accretion burst detection simulated for a high-cadence Rubin monitoring program of a given SFR, extending over one week. For each simulation, data points are assumed to be distributed uniformly and spaced in time by the amount on the x-axis. The black dots correspond to the average detection rates calculated from the simulation results assuming seven consecutive observing days, with 10 hr of observations per night. The double arrows mark the statistical range of burst detection rates extracted from the simulated data sets around each average estimate. The dashed black line traces a logarithmic fit to the calculated detection rates to interpolate for intermediate cadences. The green (dashed–dotted), orange (dotted), and red (solid) lines, labeled in the legend, illustrate how the trend of detection rate versus observing cadence would change if one or more nights of observations during the week were lost to bad weather or other technical or scheduling issues. Based on CoRoT/Kepler observations of YSOs in NGC 2264 and NGC 6530, respectively.
Paper: Young Stellar Objects, Accretion Disks, and Their Variability with Rubin Observatory LSST
Authors: R. Bonito, L. Venuti, S. Ustamujic, P. Yoachim, R. A. Street, L. Prisinzano, P. Hartigan, M. G. Guarcello, K. G. Stassun, T. Giannini, E. D. Feigelson, A. Caratti o Garatti, S. Orlando, W. I. Clarkson, P. McGehee, E. C. Bellm, J. E. Gizis
Figure caption: LC of a YSO exhibiting a bursting behavior (blue curve; data from CoRoT) with black points indicating the visits in the r band that would be obtained during the most favorable week in the 10 yr of survey, as selected with the TransientAsciiMetric applied to the OpSim baseline_v2.1_10yrs, if the object were alternatively located in a generic field to be surveyed with the WFD cadence (upper panel; R.A. = 97.456225, decl. = −37.709217), or in a DDF region (lower panel; R.A. = 53.125, decl. = −28.100).
Paper: Young Stellar Objects, Accretion Disks, and Their Variability with Rubin Observatory LSST
Authors: R. Bonito, L. Venuti, S. Ustamujic, P. Yoachim, R. A. Street, L. Prisinzano, P. Hartigan, M. G. Guarcello, K. G. Stassun, T. Giannini, E. D. Feigelson, A. Caratti o Garatti, S. Orlando, W. I. Clarkson, P. McGehee, E. C. Bellm, J. E. Gizis
Figure caption: Same as Figure 2, but using the OpSim database carina_v2.2_10yrs and the Carina routine, for which a specific SFR (Carina Nebula; R.A. = 160.0, decl. = −60.0) observing cadence was implemented following the sampling requirements discussed here.
Paper: Young Stellar Objects, Accretion Disks, and Their Variability with Rubin Observatory LSST
Authors: R. Bonito, L. Venuti, S. Ustamujic, P. Yoachim, R. A. Street, L. Prisinzano, P. Hartigan, M. G. Guarcello, K. G. Stassun, T. Giannini, E. D. Feigelson, A. Caratti o Garatti, S. Orlando, W. I. Clarkson, P. McGehee, E. C. Bellm, J. E. Gizis
Figure caption: Same as Figure 2 (lower panel), reflecting the denser DDF observing cadence but implemented for the OpSim database ddf_heavy_nexp2_v1.6_10yrs.
Paper: Light-curve Recovery with the Vera Rubin Observatory’s LSST. I. Pulsating Stars in Local Group Dwarf Galaxies
Authors: M. Di Criscienzo, S. Leccia, V. Braga, I. Musella, G. Bono, M. Dall'Ora, G. Fiorentino, M. Marconi, R. Molinaro, V. Ripepi, K. Carrell, Y. Choi, S. Savarese, L. Schreiber
Figure caption:  uniformityKS  X  in each band and at different survey years for the labeled survey strategies in case of an RRc. We remember that uniformityKS is a value between 0 (uniform sampling) and 1.
Paper: Light-curve Recovery with the Vera Rubin Observatory’s LSST. I. Pulsating Stars in Local Group Dwarf Galaxies
Authors: M. Di Criscienzo, S. Leccia, V. Braga, I. Musella, G. Bono, M. Dall'Ora, G. Fiorentino, M. Marconi, R. Molinaro, V. Ripepi, K. Carrell, Y. Choi, S. Savarese, L. Schreiber
Figure caption: Light-curve fit (with five harmonics) of RRab (a), RRc (b), CEP1 (c), and CEP2 (d) in the LMC after 10 yr of observations.
Paper: Light-curve Recovery with the Vera Rubin Observatory’s LSST. I. Pulsating Stars in Local Group Dwarf Galaxies
Authors: M. Di Criscienzo, S. Leccia, V. Braga, I. Musella, G. Bono, M. Dall'Ora, G. Fiorentino, M. Marconi, R. Molinaro, V. Ripepi, K. Carrell, Y. Choi, S. Savarese, L. Schreiber
Figure caption: Starting template and simulated LPV light curves in the LMC after 10 yr of LSST observations. Saturated visits are labeled with crosses.