ABSTRACT. Here we will explore various aspects of long term and high volume data curation and analysis. What has worked in Astronomy? What has not? What does it mean to say something has worked? What do astronomers think? What are the financial, social, technical, and practical issues that limit how data can be used in the future?

Double click to add an Abstract

INTRODUCTION The goal of this document is to outline the deliverable products and performance requirements for the ZTF Data Systems. This is to ensure that ZTF can achieve the science goals described in the ZTF Science Requirements Document. The requirements listed below apply lessons learned from PTF and iPTF to specify what should be possible with ZTF. In this document we will try to review the current status, precision and accuracy, of the PTF pipeline, and suggest ways to improve it. We also provide the list of required pipeline steps, meta data and data products to be stored. Some of this requirements may have implications to hardware apparatus (e.g., flat field screen?), and some to computing requirements and data storage. The primary science goals for ZTF, as outlined in the science requirements document, are listed below: 1. Discovery of Fast, Young, and Rare Transients at near real time; 2. Searches for Electromagnetic Counterparts to Gravitational Wave Sources; 3. Producing high precision light curves for all sources; 4. Asteroid and streaks Discovery.

Hello, welcome to Authorea! My name is Alberto and I wrote this short document to get you acquainted with Authorea. I am an Astronomerand Computer Scientist by training (I was a Postdoc at the Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics until 1 year ago) and with the help of some colleagues, I created Authorea - a collaborative writing platform for science. I received today a request for using Authorea for documents porduced by the THIRTY METER TELESCOPE TIME-DOMAIN SCIENCE DEFINITION TEAM. You should have received an email notification to open this article. How does it work? Double click anywhere on the text to start writing. In addition to simple text you can also add text formatted in BOLDFACE, _italic_, and yes, math in LaTeX too: E = mc²! Add images by drag’n’drop or click on the “Insert Figure” button.

Not sure I like that it's harder to see what you're doing now...but more simple drag and dropping windows is nice...

This collaborative document has been created for the panel discussion on “Rotation in massive stars” (FOE 2015). All conference participants have been added to the document and can edit / comment / add figures (just drag&drop) / references and even LaTeX equations if needed (check the help page for more infos on how to edit the document). Hopefully this will capture the essential ideas and interactions that will stem during and after the discussion. The document can be forked at any time, so that particular discussions can be taken further and potentially lead to active collaborations.

We now know that there are a large variety of thermonuclear supernovae (SNe) with white-dwarf (WD) progenitors, of which Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) are the most common class. Roughly 10–30% of WD transients are relatively fast, low-luminosity, and low-energy events that likely have different progenitors from SNe Ia. While SNe Ia should fully disrupt their progenitor WD, lower-energy explosions may not unbind the WD, leaving behind a battered and bruised star that should have distinct observational properties. Given the rate of peculiar transients, there should be ∼10⁶ such stars in the Milky Way. Such an odd WD was recently discovered, further indicating that the Milky Way holds unique opportunities to understand peculiar transients. There should be one of these stars at the center of peculiar thermonuclear transient remnants. We propose to observe the central stars of potential WD SN remnants to search for these stars.

Story board for this paper:(1) NuSTAR observed LMC X-1 three times. Once on its own (40 ks), once with XMM (60 ks), and once again on its own (40 ks).(2) NuSTAR sees lots of variability in the source, with the diskbb-related component apparently varying a lot during an observation, while the >15 keV emission varies from epoch-to-epoch.(3) During the XMM / NuSTAR observation we saw various "flares" here meaning flux increasing by factors of 2x in both XMM and NuSTAR. For one of these we see some evident of spectral evolution through the flare.(4) In all three epochs, the epoch-integrated spectrum shows that the source is in a different state compared to what Jack Steiner saw when they measured the spin using Suzaku. We see a softer power-law component in all three states (more like 3) compared to the 2.5 that Jack saw.     Note: In general we haven't had great success in modeling the Fe-line with a reflection model because the statistics are too poor. This being said, there seem to be a lot more models out there (if not public, at least accessible if you know the right people...)Results:(5) From these data, we can't confirm the spin measured by Suzaku. The RXTE analysis explicitly assumes that the source always has a power-law index of 2.5 in order to get the spin measurements. Given that we've looked at it three times and have seen a softer non-thermal component I need to make a probabilistic statement against the RXTE analysis (Gao  et al, I'll link the paper in here).(6) Let's compare the source explicitly to Cyg X-1. These are both wind fed systems, so why is their behavior so different? What's special about LMC X-1 (or Cyg X-1, for that matter) that allows one source to undergo state transitions and the other not to. Something to do with the angular momentum of the stellar wind for the LMC X-1 companion truncating the disk?(7) How can we interpret the spectral evolution of the flare? It looks like the harder emission goes first, then the softer emission responds. This implies that there is some energy transfer in the disk, but the timescales are pretty small. Can we use this to measure the viscous timescale of the disk? How else can we interpret this?

Introduction and MotivationContext of inconsistencies in federated modelsChallenge of identifying inconsistenciesFrame this problem as a graph reasoning problem    - graphs are generic   - similarities between graphs allow one to identify equivalences and inconsistencies.What are other applications of inexact graph reasoning problems? -- provides a broader motivationRelated work- on inconsistency management- on inexact reasoning with graphsApproach- development of an algorithm for inexact reasoning with graphs- characterization of algorithm performance

Neutron stars typically have magnetic field strengths of $\sim 10^{12} \rm \ G$. However, if a neutron star’s rotation period is comparable to the convective overturn time, magnetic fields can be amplified by helical motion in a mean field dynamo. These highly magnetized neutron stars, magnetars, are born with short periods of $\sim 1 \ \rm ms$, which allow them to support an efficient α − Ω dynamo, resulting in large magnetic dipole fields of $10^{14}-10^{15} \rm \ G$ . A magnetar of mass 1.4M⊙, $R = 10 \ \rm km$, and $P = 1 \ \rm ms$ has a rotational energy of E_{\rm rot} = I \omega^2 /2 = {5}MR^2 \left({P}\right)^2 \simeq 4 \times 10^{51} \ \rm erg The strong magnetic stresses and torques damped the rotation and release a large fraction of $E_{\rm rot}$ on the time scale of \tau \simeq 0.6 B_{15}^{-2} (P/1 \ {\rm ms})^2 \ \rm hr . This amount of energy is similar to that released in γ-ray bursts and superluminous supernovae (SLSNe), thus making magnetar an attractive candidate for the central engine that power these explosions. In the past two decades, a connection has been made between supernovae and at least some subclass of long-duration γ-ray bursts (LGRBs), supporting the case that they are powered by the same mechanism.   Around the same time that magnetars were proposed, a realization had emerged that GRBs could have cosmological origins. This would require a total energy of $\sim 10^{51} \ \rm erg$ to explain the observed flux assuming isotropic emission (e.g. ). Interestingly, the first proposal of highly magnetized neutron stars as central engines of these bursts, , was published only a day after . The proposed scenario is such that a magnetar forms from a white dwarf via accretion induced collapse (AIC). The WD magnetic field of $\sim 10^9 \ \rm G$ is amplified to $10^{15} \rm \ G$ by magnetic flux conservation. The rotational period of $\sim 1 \ \rm ms$ is a result of angular momentum conservation. [1] The newly formed neutron star then loses its rotational energy quickly due to electromagnetic torque, generating electric fields that accelerate particles to ultra-relativistic energies, which eventually give out γ-ray. The timescale of energy release due to magnetic dipole luminosity and gravitational wave emission of $\sim 20 \ \rm s$ for a typical magnetar is consistent with the timescale of long-duration GRBs. Near the magnetar’s surface out to the light cylinder, the optical depth to this radiation due to Compton scattering, absorption, and pair-cration is large. The radiation has to propagate out to a photosphere radius of $\sim 10^8 \ \rm cm$ before it is released. The typical radiated γ-ray energies of $0.1-1 \ \rm MeV$ is also consistent with those observed from GRBs .   Recent works have shown that while magnetars formed via AIC may be responsible for some GRBs, magnetars formed in the core collapse of massive stars like those proposed by are probably more prevalent. The modern view of the mechanism for core-collapse GRB as laid out by is as following. Shortly after the core bounce, a non-relativistic wind heated by neutrino blows through the cavity carved out by the supernova (SN) shock into a _bipolar jet_. The relativistic jet from the newly formed magnetar follows, and emerges as a GRB prompt emission. After $30-100 \ \rm s$, the maximum Lorantz factor increases to σ₀ ≫ 1 rendering magnetic dissipation and jet acceleration ineffective. This ended the prompt GRB within the observed timescale of $\sim 20 \ \rm s$. After the prompt emission ended, the spin-down of the central magnetar continues to power the GRB into its X-ray plateau phase with a correlation between the plateau luminosity and duration (LT correlation). The observed correlation is given by $ \log L_{\rm X} = a + b \log T_a$ where $L_{\rm X}$ is the plateau luminosity and Ta is the rest frame plateau end time. The magnetar model predicts this correlation with b = 1 and a = log(10⁵²I₄₅−1P0, −3−2) which match observations . also showed that the magnetar model is able to produce the evolution of σ₀ that matches observations with no need of fine-tuning, unlike models in which GRBs are powered by rapidly accreting BHs [2].   The requirement of collimated relativistic flows leading to bi-polar jets in GRBs limit the central engines to only magnetars having periods of $1 \ \rm ms$ and magnetic fields of $\sim 10^{15} \ \rm G$. However, the less extreme population of magnetars can still power quite fantastic cosmic fireworks. noted that the spin down timescale given in [eqn:timescale] is shorter than the SN shock breakout time, making SNe that create magnetars brighter than usual. These subclasses of brighter Type II SNe are indeed observed (e.g. ). Recently, a number of rare superluminous SNe (SLSNe) are discovered, emitting the total radiation energy of $\sim 10^{51} \ \rm erg$ (e.g. SN2005ap, ; SN2008es, ). The radioactive decay of $\rm ^{56}Ni$ alone cannot output this amount of energy. showed that magnetars with $B \sim 10^{14} \ \rm G$ and initial period $P_i \sim 2-20 \ \rm ms$ can release rotational energy via magnetic dipole radiation on the spin-down timescale comparable to the effective diffusion time of the ejecta. They showed that these magnetars can enhance the peak luminosity to what given by L_{\rm peak} \sim E_{\rm p} t_{\rm p}/t_{\rm d}^2 \sim 5 \times 10^{43} B_{14}^{-2} ^{-1} M_{5}^{-3/2}E_{51}^{1/2} \ \rm erg s^{-1} where $$ is the electron scattering opacity, M₅ is the ejecta mass in the 5 M⊙ unit. This exceeds $10^{43} \rm \ erg \ s^{-1} $, making these events brighter than normal core-collapse Type II-P SNe. Figure 4 and 5 in show the dependence of the peak luminosity and the time to peak on B and Pi for ejecta mass of 5 and 20 M⊙ respectively. If magnetars with different magnetic field strengths and birth periods are responsible for both LGRBs and SLSNe, at least some LGRBs should be accompanied by SNe. These associations between GRBs and SNe are indeed observed, with the first pair of events being SN1998bw and GRB 980425 . A number of other events have since been observed (see e.g. for a review). showed that magnetars in the transition region in the B − Pi plane with $P_i \sim 2 \ \rm ms$ and the spin-down timescale of $\sim 10^4 \ \rm s$ can explain GRB 111209 and SN2011kl pair and the SLSN ASASSN-15lh, the most luminous SN ever observed. This association between GRBs and SNe is another evidence that these two classes of events share magnetar as their central engine. As modern transients surveys in all wavelengths continue to discover various types of peculiar events, we will have more data to constrain theoretical models, leading to a better understanding of this messy ending chapter of the stellar evolution. [1] also briefly mentioned this scenario as a possible explanation for cosmological GRBs. [2] A lot can be said about the rivalry between these two competing models for the central engine of GRBs. and references therein provide some introduction to both.

IntroductionThe Nuclear Spectrscopic Telescope ARray (NuSTAR) \cite{Harrison_2013} is a NASA Astrophysics Small Explorer observatory that launched in June of 2012. NuSTAR is composed of two co-aligned hard X-ray telescopes focused onto two focal plane arrays (hereafter FPMA and FPMB). We have previously described the time-dependent gain calibration of the detectors as a function of time \cite{Madsen_2015}. Here we describe an updated approach to the time-dependent gain and our process for validating our time-dependent gain corrections to determine if any additional corrections as a function of time are required. Updates to Time-dependent Gain CalibrationThe conversion of the pulse heights (PHAs) collected by the NuSTAR detectors is a multi-stage process that relies on several underlying CALDB files (for a full description see the NuSTAR data analysis software users guide). Several corrections were made to the CLC files after launch to account for differences in the gain for the FPMA detectors compared to pre-launch estimates using the in-flight 155-Eu calibration source. However, since the lines that are produced are predominantly at high energies (86.54 and 105.4 keV) with several blended X-ray lines at low energies (including strong lines at 6.06 and 6.71 keV. In \cite{Madsen_2015} we used two epochs of the calibration source to determine the time-dependent change in the energy scale using the standard Xspec formalism, where the transfer function to the correct PI values are:

OUR PROBLEM Signal In the context of testing Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (GR) using continuous gravitational waves (GWs), we can define all possible signal models as subsets of the most generic conceivable signal : s (t) = {2} \sum_p a_p A_p(t), for the antenna patterns Ap, a complex coefficient ap and with the sum over all possible polarizations: plus (+), cross (×), vector x (x), vector y (y) breathing (b) and longitudinal (l). Note longitudinal mode is fully degenerate with breathing and can be safely excluded. The GR hypothesis is obtained by setting: a_+ = h_0 (1+\cos^2 \iota)/2, a_\times = h_0 \cos \iota~ e^{-i\pi/2}, a_{\rm x} = a_{\rm y} = a_{\rm b} = a_{\rm l} = 0, where ι is the inclination angle and h₀ an overall amplitude determined by the properties of the source. Note that the polarizations can be categorized in terms of their associated graviton spin: tensor (+, ×), vector (x, y) and scalar (b, l). These groups are not separable: a signal model that includes one element, must also include the other (e.g. it is not possible to have a model that allows plus + but not ×). The reason for this is that the distinction between modes of a same spin is contingent on the relative orientation of source and detector (i.e. the difference is not intrinsic to the signal). In order for our notation to agree with that used in lalapps_pulsar_parameter_estimation_nested, for each polarization p, parametrize ap by real amplitude hp and relative phase ϕp such that ap = hpeiϕp. Furthermore, define an angle ϕs for each spin s and an internal offset ψs between components of a given spin; that way: \phi_+ = \phi_\times = + = = + = = +

The redshifts and emission-line strengths for XXXX Galaxies in 29 fields of the WFC3 Infrared Spectroscopic Parallels (WISP) Survey are presented.

INTRODUCTION This document outlines the high-level science requirements of the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF), an optical time-domain survey to be based at Palomar Observatory. ZTF is the successor to the Palomar Transient Factory (PTF; 2009–2012) and Intermediate Palomar Transient Factory (iPTF; 2013–present) surveys. PTF and iPTF used a secondhand camera on the Palomar 48-inch Schmidt telescope to survey the sky for astronomical transients and variables. ZTF will instead use a purpose-built survey camera on the same telescope to achieve more than an order of magnitude improvement in survey speed relative to PTF.

INTRODUCTION Currently in the known pulsar searches we have been using a uniform prior distribution between zero and some arbitrary, but large, upper value e.g. p(h_0|I) = {h_{}} & 0 \leq h_0 < h_{} \\ 0 & . However, this type of prior place a lot of probability at large values of h₀ where in fact there is very little prior probability. As h₀ is a scale factor, the general least informative prior is the Jeffreys prior of the form p(h_0|I) \propto {h_0}, but this suffers from being improper (unnormalisable) and in the presence of no signal it will often overwhelm the likelihood when setting upper limits.

AbstractIntroductionVolatile organic compounds (VOCs) of both anthropogenic and biogenic origin are oxidized in the atmosphere to form particulate matter commonly referred to as secondary organic aerosol (SOA). Given the prominant role that SOA plays in air quality and global climate, understanding the composition and formation mechanism of SOA has been a major focus in the field of Atmospheric Chemistry. In the global scale, a large fraction of SOA arisese from oxidation of monoterpenes (e.g., α-pinene) which are oxidized readily by major atmospehric oxidants, such as the OH radical and O3 . Despite the number of studies focusing on SOA from α-pinene,  our understanding of the reaction mechanisms and products from this reaction system still remains incomplete. Particularly, the measurement and  identification of organic peroxides represent important missing aspects to complete the picture. Organic peroxides are reservoirs of the OH radical which governs the oxidative environment in the gas and condensed phases \cite{Ervens_2015,Crounse_2013}. As well, organic peroxides belong to reactive oxygen species (ROS) which is linked to the health effect of air pollution \cite{Tao_2003} .  Quantification and identification of organic peroxides present in SOA are of great benefit in understanding the multifaceted role that SOA plays in the atmospheric environment. It has been known that SOA arising from α-pinene contains a substential amount of total organic peroxides \cite{Docherty_2005}, quantified by chemical assays such as iodometry  and \cite{Mutzel_2013} dichlorofluoresin (DCFH) assay \cite{Wang_2011,Badali_2015}. It is well established that organic hydroperoxides (ROOH) forms in both the \cite{Ziemann_2012} gas and aqueous \cite{VONSONNTAG_1997} phases, via reaction of a peroxy radical (RO2) with a hydroperoxy radical (HO2). The recent development of analytical techniques, particularly the application of liquid chromatography - electrospray ionization - time of flight mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-ToF-MS) on extracted SOA components, has lead to proposals of novel chemical mechanisms and has significantly advanced our understanding of particle-phase organic compounds, with many of which been proposed to be organic peroxides. (Groups to check out: Kalberer, Kristensen, Suratt, Nizkorodov, Johnston) These studies have shown that organic peroxides constitute a key component of particle-phase highly oxygenated multifunctional organic compounds (HOMs) which likely arises from repeated intra-molecular hydrogen-abstraction reactions and exhibit extremely low volatility \cite{Ehn_2014}. Alternatively, the stabilized Criegee intermediate (SCI) formed during gas-phase ozonolysis can react with organic acids and form a class of dimer estes that contains a hydroperoxy group \cite{Kristensen_2014,Kristensen_2016}. When present in sufficiently high mixing ratios in the gas phase, RO2 radicals can likely react with another RO2 radical to form ROOR species \citet{Kwan_2012,Ng_2008,Zhang_2015} . 

It is not completely understood what powers the extremely large energy output from a Superluminous Supernova (SLSN). However, with increasing number of newly discovered SLSNe, and in particular, with better coverage of bolometric light curves and spectroscopy from early to late times, new insights have been obtained regarding this unsolved problem. This paper presents the observations of iPTF15esb, which is a hydrogen-poor SLSN discovered by intermediate Palomar Transient Factory at z=0.224. iPTF15esb has three unique features. Its multi-band light curves (LC) show several bumps, unlike a typical smooth rise-and-decline SLSN LC. The LC undulation is most pronounced at the shorter wavelength. In addition, its LC also has a plateau lasting ∼40days, somewhat similar to that of a SNIIP. The third intriguing feature is the detection of a strong, broad Hα emission at ∼70days from the primary peak, similar to what has been seen in SLSN-I iPTF13ehe. iPTF15esb After that, it undergoes a rapid decline with Lbol ∼ t−2.5 , have two prominent bumps and a plateau with a duration of ∼40days, similar to that of a SNIIP. The LC undulation is most pronounced at the shorter wavelength. The third intriguing feature is the detection of a strong, broad Hα emission at ∼70days from the primary LC peak. reports the observations of iPTF15esb at z=0.224, which reveal three unique characteristics The multi-band light curves reveal several prominent bumps on top of a general trend of rising and declining. These bumps are most pronounced at shorter wavelength. In addition, late-time spectra display a strong, broad Hα emission, similar to iPTF13ehe. These new features observed in iPTF15esb could be explained by three different models, (1) shell-shell collisions or ejecta-CSM (H-poor) interaction, (2) changing of opacity, (3) fall-back accretion of a central blackhole with varying fall-back/accretion rates...

This is a test.What about this?Who am I?