#astroph — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #astroph, aggregated by home.social.
-
#paperday on #astroph
"Monitoring the power spectrum of magnetic field fluctuations
across the simulated intracluster medium" by PhD student Tommaso Bartalesi, myself et al.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.19307
we discuss how the 3D spectrum of magnetic fields amplified by cluster dynamics change as a function of the position and local dynamics of a cluster of galaxies, simulated at high resolution using ENZO-MHD.
-
#paperday on #astroph
"Monitoring the power spectrum of magnetic field fluctuations
across the simulated intracluster medium" by PhD student Tommaso Bartalesi, myself et al.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.19307
we discuss how the 3D spectrum of magnetic fields amplified by cluster dynamics change as a function of the position and local dynamics of a cluster of galaxies, simulated at high resolution using ENZO-MHD.
-
#paperday on #astroph
"Monitoring the power spectrum of magnetic field fluctuations
across the simulated intracluster medium" by PhD student Tommaso Bartalesi, myself et al.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.19307
we discuss how the 3D spectrum of magnetic fields amplified by cluster dynamics change as a function of the position and local dynamics of a cluster of galaxies, simulated at high resolution using ENZO-MHD.
-
#paperday on #astroph
"Monitoring the power spectrum of magnetic field fluctuations
across the simulated intracluster medium" by PhD student Tommaso Bartalesi, myself et al.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.19307
we discuss how the 3D spectrum of magnetic fields amplified by cluster dynamics change as a function of the position and local dynamics of a cluster of galaxies, simulated at high resolution using ENZO-MHD.
-
#paperday on #astroph
"Monitoring the power spectrum of magnetic field fluctuations
across the simulated intracluster medium" by PhD student Tommaso Bartalesi, myself et al.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.19307
we discuss how the 3D spectrum of magnetic fields amplified by cluster dynamics change as a function of the position and local dynamics of a cluster of galaxies, simulated at high resolution using ENZO-MHD.
-
What Fraction of Astronomy Papers use LLMs?
As a journal Editor I’ve been grappling with the problem of a huge influx of papers that use various forms of generative AI. As I’ve said before the problem seems to me not that competent scientists use LLMs and the like to speed up their work, but that fools can use them to produce superficially plausible but scientifically flawed articles very quickly. It’s the latter category that comprises much of the increase at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. I’d be far more positive about LLMs if we could rely on people to use them properly!
Anyway, there’s a new paper on the arXiv with the title More than half of recent astronomy papers are written with language-model assistance. Here’s the abstract:
As you can see, the claim is that over half of the recent astronomy papers on the astro-ph section of arXiv use Large Language Model (LLM) assistance but that only a tiny fraction of that number declare it. (In my experience those that declare use of LLMs also understate the extent if their use.)
I think this paper is well worth reading. It is based on the excess frequency of certain words and phrases. The authors explain:
Counting excess vocabulary is straightforward. Converting a count into a statement of the form “% of papers used a language model” requires the frequency these words would have had if language models had never been released, and that frequency stopped being observable in November 2022. Statistical precision is not the obstacle, since with hundreds of thousands of papers the observed frequencies are known almost exactly. That frequency can only be supplied by a model, so every estimate in this literature rests on the model chosen for it.
They go on to analyse various models to arrive at their conclusions. I’ll leave it to the reader to go into the details.
One issue I have is that the analysis seems to assume that all changes after the introduction of LLMs in late 2022 are attributable to LLMs. But language changes anyway, and was changing long before AI came on the scene. I would like to see, as a control, a comparison between, say 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 so see if similar changes happened. One problem is that the total number of papers on arXiv is growing monotonically so there are many more papers in 2025 than there were in 2006.
P.S. Ironically, the analysis behind and the writing of this paper were both “assisted” by Claude….
P.P.S. Here’s a suggestion: if you use an LLM to help you write the paper, then you should name it as a co-author.
#arXiv260910664v1 #astroPh #BayesianModel #Claude #LargeLanguageModels #llm -
What Fraction of Astronomy Papers use LLMs?
As a journal Editor I’ve been grappling with the problem of a huge influx of papers that use various forms of generative AI. As I’ve said before the problem seems to me not that competent scientists use LLMs and the like to speed up their work, but that fools can use them to produce superficially plausible but scientifically flawed articles very quickly. It’s the latter category that comprises much of the increase at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. I’d be far more positive about LLMs if we could rely on people to use them properly!
Anyway, there’s a new paper on the arXiv with the title More than half of recent astronomy papers are written with language-model assistance. Here’s the abstract:
As you can see, the claim is that over half of the recent astronomy papers on the astro-ph section of arXiv use Large Language Model (LLM) assistance but that only a tiny fraction of that number declare it. (In my experience those that declare use of LLMs also understate the extent if their use.)
I think this paper is well worth reading. It is based on the excess frequency of certain words and phrases. The authors explain:
Counting excess vocabulary is straightforward. Converting a count into a statement of the form “% of papers used a language model” requires the frequency these words would have had if language models had never been released, and that frequency stopped being observable in November 2022. Statistical precision is not the obstacle, since with hundreds of thousands of papers the observed frequencies are known almost exactly. That frequency can only be supplied by a model, so every estimate in this literature rests on the model chosen for it.
They go on to analyse various models to arrive at their conclusions. I’ll leave it to the reader to go into the details.
One issue I have is that the analysis seems to assume that all changes after the introduction of LLMs in late 2022 are attributable to LLMs. But language changes anyway, and was changing long before AI came on the scene. I would like to see, as a control, a comparison between, say 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 so see if similar changes happened. One problem is that the total number of papers on arXiv is growing monotonically so there are many more papers in 2025 than there were in 2006.
P.S. Ironically, the analysis behind and the writing of this paper were both “assisted” by Claude….
P.P.S. Here’s a suggestion: if you use an LLM to help you write the paper, then you should name it as a co-author.
#arXiv260910664v1 #astroPh #BayesianModel #Claude #LargeLanguageModels #llm -
What Fraction of Astronomy Papers use LLMs?
As a journal Editor I’ve been grappling with the problem of a huge influx of papers that use various forms of generative AI. As I’ve said before the problem seems to me not that competent scientists use LLMs and the like to speed up their work, but that fools can use them to produce superficially plausible but scientifically flawed articles very quickly. It’s the latter category that comprises much of the increase at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. I’d be far more positive about LLMs if we could rely on people to use them properly!
Anyway, there’s a new paper on the arXiv with the title More than half of recent astronomy papers are written with language-model assistance. Here’s the abstract:
As you can see, the claim is that over half of the recent astronomy papers on the astro-ph section of arXiv use Large Language Model (LLM) assistance but that only a tiny fraction of that number declare it. (In my experience those that declare use of LLMs also understate the extent if their use.)
I think this paper is well worth reading. It is based on the excess frequency of certain words and phrases. The authors explain:
Counting excess vocabulary is straightforward. Converting a count into a statement of the form “% of papers used a language model” requires the frequency these words would have had if language models had never been released, and that frequency stopped being observable in November 2022. Statistical precision is not the obstacle, since with hundreds of thousands of papers the observed frequencies are known almost exactly. That frequency can only be supplied by a model, so every estimate in this literature rests on the model chosen for it.
They go on to analyse various models to arrive at their conclusions. I’ll leave it to the reader to go into the details.
One issue I have is that the analysis seems to assume that all changes after the introduction of LLMs in late 2022 are attributable to LLMs. But language changes anyway, and was changing long before AI came on the scene. I would like to see, as a control, a comparison between, say 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 so see if similar changes happened. One problem is that the total number of papers on arXiv is growing monotonically so there are many more papers in 2025 than there were in 2006.
P.S. Ironically, the analysis behind and the writing of this paper were both “assisted” by Claude….
P.P.S. Here’s a suggestion: if you use an LLM to help you write the paper, then you should name it as a co-author.
#arXiv260910664v1 #astroPh #BayesianModel #Claude #LargeLanguageModels #llm -
What Fraction of Astronomy Papers use LLMs?
As a journal Editor I’ve been grappling with the problem of a huge influx of papers that use various forms of generative AI. As I’ve said before the problem seems to me not that competent scientists use LLMs and the like to speed up their work, but that fools can use them to produce superficially plausible but scientifically flawed articles very quickly. It’s the latter category that comprises much of the increase at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. I’d be far more positive about LLMs if we could rely on people to use them properly!
Anyway, there’s a new paper on the arXiv with the title More than half of recent astronomy papers are written with language-model assistance. Here’s the abstract:
As you can see, the claim is that over half of the recent astronomy papers on the astro-ph section of arXiv use Large Language Model (LLM) assistance but that only a tiny fraction of that number declare it. (In my experience those that declare use of LLMs also understate the extent if their use.)
I think this paper is well worth reading. It is based on the excess frequency of certain words and phrases. The authors explain:
Counting excess vocabulary is straightforward. Converting a count into a statement of the form “% of papers used a language model” requires the frequency these words would have had if language models had never been released, and that frequency stopped being observable in November 2022. Statistical precision is not the obstacle, since with hundreds of thousands of papers the observed frequencies are known almost exactly. That frequency can only be supplied by a model, so every estimate in this literature rests on the model chosen for it.
They go on to analyse various models to arrive at their conclusions. I’ll leave it to the reader to go into the details.
One issue I have is that the analysis seems to assume that all changes after the introduction of LLMs in late 2022 are attributable to LLMs. But language changes anyway, and was changing long before AI came on the scene. I would like to see, as a control, a comparison between, say 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 so see if similar changes happened. One problem is that the total number of papers on arXiv is growing monotonically so there are many more papers in 2025 than there were in 2006.
P.S. Ironically, the analysis behind and the writing of this paper were both “assisted” by Claude….
P.P.S. Here’s a suggestion: if you use an LLM to help you write the paper, then you should name it as a co-author.
#arXiv260910664v1 #astroPh #BayesianModel #Claude #LargeLanguageModels #llm -
What Fraction of Astronomy Papers use LLMs?
As a journal Editor I’ve been grappling with the problem of a huge influx of papers that use various forms of generative AI. As I’ve said before the problem seems to me not that competent scientists use LLMs and the like to speed up their work, but that fools can use them to produce superficially plausible but scientifically flawed articles very quickly. It’s the latter category that comprises much of the increase at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. I’d be far more positive about LLMs if we could rely on people to use them properly!
Anyway, there’s a new paper on the arXiv with the title More than half of recent astronomy papers are written with language-model assistance. Here’s the abstract:
As you can see, the claim is that over half of the recent astronomy papers on the astro-ph section of arXiv use Large Language Model (LLM) assistance but that only a tiny fraction of that number declare it. (In my experience those that declare use of LLMs also understate the extent if their use.)
I think this paper is well worth reading. It is based on the excess frequency of certain words and phrases. The authors explain:
Counting excess vocabulary is straightforward. Converting a count into a statement of the form “% of papers used a language model” requires the frequency these words would have had if language models had never been released, and that frequency stopped being observable in November 2022. Statistical precision is not the obstacle, since with hundreds of thousands of papers the observed frequencies are known almost exactly. That frequency can only be supplied by a model, so every estimate in this literature rests on the model chosen for it.
They go on to analyse various models to arrive at their conclusions. I’ll leave it to the reader to go into the details.
One issue I have is that the analysis seems to assume that all changes after the introduction of LLMs in late 2022 are attributable to LLMs. But language changes anyway, and was changing long before AI came on the scene. I would like to see, as a control, a comparison between, say 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 so see if similar changes happened. One problem is that the total number of papers on arXiv is growing monotonically so there are many more papers in 2025 than there were in 2006.
P.S. Ironically, the analysis behind and the writing of this paper were both “assisted” by Claude….
P.P.S. Here’s a suggestion: if you use an LLM to help you write the paper, then you should name it as a co-author.
#arXiv260910664v1 #astroPh #BayesianModel #Claude #LargeLanguageModels #llm -
on #astroph
"More than half of recent astronomy papers are written with language-model assistance" by Saad & Ting
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.10664
(tbh now I am doubting whether and article whose authors may read as "sad thing" can itself by written by #AI...)
-
on #astroph
"More than half of recent astronomy papers are written with language-model assistance" by Saad & Ting
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.10664
(tbh now I am doubting whether and article whose authors may read as "sad thing" can itself by written by #AI...)
-
on #astroph
"More than half of recent astronomy papers are written with language-model assistance" by Saad & Ting
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.10664
(tbh now I am doubting whether and article whose authors may read as "sad thing" can itself by written by #AI...)
-
on #astroph
"More than half of recent astronomy papers are written with language-model assistance" by Saad & Ting
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.10664
(tbh now I am doubting whether and article whose authors may read as "sad thing" can itself by written by #AI...)
-
on #astroph
"More than half of recent astronomy papers are written with language-model assistance" by Saad & Ting
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.10664
(tbh now I am doubting whether and article whose authors may read as "sad thing" can itself by written by #AI...)
-
On #astroph: more deeper-than-ever radio observations of cluster Abell 520 thanks to MeerKAT:
" Extended radio emission in and around the merging cluster A 520 as seen by MeerKAT " by S. Giacintucci et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.00156
with discoveries of more extended emission and even of radio relics close to the cluster virial radius!
-
On #astroph: more deeper-than-ever radio observations of cluster Abell 520 thanks to MeerKAT:
" Extended radio emission in and around the merging cluster A 520 as seen by MeerKAT " by S. Giacintucci et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.00156
with discoveries of more extended emission and even of radio relics close to the cluster virial radius!
-
On #astroph: more deeper-than-ever radio observations of cluster Abell 520 thanks to MeerKAT:
" Extended radio emission in and around the merging cluster A 520 as seen by MeerKAT " by S. Giacintucci et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.00156
with discoveries of more extended emission and even of radio relics close to the cluster virial radius!
-
On #astroph: more deeper-than-ever radio observations of cluster Abell 520 thanks to MeerKAT:
" Extended radio emission in and around the merging cluster A 520 as seen by MeerKAT " by S. Giacintucci et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.00156
with discoveries of more extended emission and even of radio relics close to the cluster virial radius!
-
On #astroph: more deeper-than-ever radio observations of cluster Abell 520 thanks to MeerKAT:
" Extended radio emission in and around the merging cluster A 520 as seen by MeerKAT " by S. Giacintucci et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.00156
with discoveries of more extended emission and even of radio relics close to the cluster virial radius!
-
On the #astroph today: beautiful radio analysis of intergalactic magnetic fields in the cluster-cluster filament (at least 14 Megparsec long)( between Abell 3667 and 3651, by Chiara Stuardi and collaborators:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.28758
using Faraday Rotation observations in the POSSUM survey with the Australian ASKAP telescope.
-
On the #astroph today: beautiful radio analysis of intergalactic magnetic fields in the cluster-cluster filament (at least 14 Megparsec long)( between Abell 3667 and 3651, by Chiara Stuardi and collaborators:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.28758
using Faraday Rotation observations in the POSSUM survey with the Australian ASKAP telescope.
-
On the #astroph today: beautiful radio analysis of intergalactic magnetic fields in the cluster-cluster filament (at least 14 Megparsec long)( between Abell 3667 and 3651, by Chiara Stuardi and collaborators:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.28758
using Faraday Rotation observations in the POSSUM survey with the Australian ASKAP telescope.
-
On the #astroph today: beautiful radio analysis of intergalactic magnetic fields in the cluster-cluster filament (at least 14 Megparsec long)( between Abell 3667 and 3651, by Chiara Stuardi and collaborators:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.28758
using Faraday Rotation observations in the POSSUM survey with the Australian ASKAP telescope.
-
On the #astroph today: beautiful radio analysis of intergalactic magnetic fields in the cluster-cluster filament (at least 14 Megparsec long)( between Abell 3667 and 3651, by Chiara Stuardi and collaborators:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.28758
using Faraday Rotation observations in the POSSUM survey with the Australian ASKAP telescope.
-
New on the #astroph: "A radio continuum view of Stephan’s Quintet: age, dynamics and origin of the shock"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.26461 by K. Rajpurohit and collab.
Important new set of radio observations using MEERKAT of this very famous association of galaxies in the sky, which helps solving some of the dynamical puzzles of this system.
-
New on the #astroph: "A radio continuum view of Stephan’s Quintet: age, dynamics and origin of the shock"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.26461 by K. Rajpurohit and collab.
Important new set of radio observations using MEERKAT of this very famous association of galaxies in the sky, which helps solving some of the dynamical puzzles of this system.
-
New on the #astroph: "A radio continuum view of Stephan’s Quintet: age, dynamics and origin of the shock"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.26461 by K. Rajpurohit and collab.
Important new set of radio observations using MEERKAT of this very famous association of galaxies in the sky, which helps solving some of the dynamical puzzles of this system.
-
New on the #astroph: "A radio continuum view of Stephan’s Quintet: age, dynamics and origin of the shock"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.26461 by K. Rajpurohit and collab.
Important new set of radio observations using MEERKAT of this very famous association of galaxies in the sky, which helps solving some of the dynamical puzzles of this system.
-
New on the #astroph: "A radio continuum view of Stephan’s Quintet: age, dynamics and origin of the shock"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.26461 by K. Rajpurohit and collab.
Important new set of radio observations using MEERKAT of this very famous association of galaxies in the sky, which helps solving some of the dynamical puzzles of this system.
-
Just finished going through the list of ~1200 papers on #astroph I was missing since 3rd of August. 😩
Saved about 12 for further reading, not too bad!
-
Just finished going through the list of ~1200 papers on #astroph I was missing since 3rd of August. 😩
Saved about 12 for further reading, not too bad!
-
Just finished going through the list of ~1200 papers on #astroph I was missing since 3rd of August. 😩
Saved about 12 for further reading, not too bad!
-
Just finished going through the list of ~1200 papers on #astroph I was missing since 3rd of August. 😩
Saved about 12 for further reading, not too bad!
-
Just finished going through the list of ~1200 papers on #astroph I was missing since 3rd of August. 😩
Saved about 12 for further reading, not too bad!
-
no PDF to download from #astroph today?
well that's an easy way to digest the literature of the day, even if too bad because there also is a paper i was involved in. -
no PDF to download from #astroph today?
well that's an easy way to digest the literature of the day, even if too bad because there also is a paper i was involved in. -
no PDF to download from #astroph today?
well that's an easy way to digest the literature of the day, even if too bad because there also is a paper i was involved in. -
no PDF to download from #astroph today?
well that's an easy way to digest the literature of the day, even if too bad because there also is a paper i was involved in. -
no PDF to download from #astroph today?
well that's an easy way to digest the literature of the day, even if too bad because there also is a paper i was involved in. -
#paperday on #astroph:
another chapter contribution to the Advancing Astrophysics with the SKAII big collection of papers trying to outline what the SKA may and should be doing in a few years 🤞🏼In this one I helped giving a sense of what might be detectable with a few different survey configurations for SKA-LOW and MID, on the scale of filaments of the cosmic web:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.31503
"The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe through the
SKA lenses" by Cuciti et al. -
#paperday on #astroph:
another chapter contribution to the Advancing Astrophysics with the SKAII big collection of papers trying to outline what the SKA may and should be doing in a few years 🤞🏼In this one I helped giving a sense of what might be detectable with a few different survey configurations for SKA-LOW and MID, on the scale of filaments of the cosmic web:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.31503
"The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe through the
SKA lenses" by Cuciti et al. -
#paperday on #astroph:
another chapter contribution to the Advancing Astrophysics with the SKAII big collection of papers trying to outline what the SKA may and should be doing in a few years 🤞🏼In this one I helped giving a sense of what might be detectable with a few different survey configurations for SKA-LOW and MID, on the scale of filaments of the cosmic web:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.31503
"The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe through the
SKA lenses" by Cuciti et al. -
#paperday on #astroph:
another chapter contribution to the Advancing Astrophysics with the SKAII big collection of papers trying to outline what the SKA may and should be doing in a few years 🤞🏼In this one I helped giving a sense of what might be detectable with a few different survey configurations for SKA-LOW and MID, on the scale of filaments of the cosmic web:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.31503
"The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe through the
SKA lenses" by Cuciti et al. -
#paperday on #astroph:
another chapter contribution to the Advancing Astrophysics with the SKAII big collection of papers trying to outline what the SKA may and should be doing in a few years 🤞🏼In this one I helped giving a sense of what might be detectable with a few different survey configurations for SKA-LOW and MID, on the scale of filaments of the cosmic web:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.31503
"The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe through the
SKA lenses" by Cuciti et al. -
#paperday on #astroph
"An SKA-Low RM Grid for constraining the origin of cosmic magnetism" by S. O'Sullivan, myself and othershttps://arxiv.org/abs/2606.25096
in one of the many contribution to the Advancing Astrophysics with the SKA II collection of works.
Here we discuss the many directions in which the SKA is going to improve our understanding of cosmic magnetism using its polarisation capabilities, to study the Faraday Rotation effect across the cosmic web
-
#paperday on #astroph
"An SKA-Low RM Grid for constraining the origin of cosmic magnetism" by S. O'Sullivan, myself and othershttps://arxiv.org/abs/2606.25096
in one of the many contribution to the Advancing Astrophysics with the SKA II collection of works.
Here we discuss the many directions in which the SKA is going to improve our understanding of cosmic magnetism using its polarisation capabilities, to study the Faraday Rotation effect across the cosmic web
-
#paperday on #astroph
"An SKA-Low RM Grid for constraining the origin of cosmic magnetism" by S. O'Sullivan, myself and othershttps://arxiv.org/abs/2606.25096
in one of the many contribution to the Advancing Astrophysics with the SKA II collection of works.
Here we discuss the many directions in which the SKA is going to improve our understanding of cosmic magnetism using its polarisation capabilities, to study the Faraday Rotation effect across the cosmic web
-
#paperday on #astroph
"An SKA-Low RM Grid for constraining the origin of cosmic magnetism" by S. O'Sullivan, myself and othershttps://arxiv.org/abs/2606.25096
in one of the many contribution to the Advancing Astrophysics with the SKA II collection of works.
Here we discuss the many directions in which the SKA is going to improve our understanding of cosmic magnetism using its polarisation capabilities, to study the Faraday Rotation effect across the cosmic web
-
#paperday on #astroph
"An SKA-Low RM Grid for constraining the origin of cosmic magnetism" by S. O'Sullivan, myself and othershttps://arxiv.org/abs/2606.25096
in one of the many contribution to the Advancing Astrophysics with the SKA II collection of works.
Here we discuss the many directions in which the SKA is going to improve our understanding of cosmic magnetism using its polarisation capabilities, to study the Faraday Rotation effect across the cosmic web
-
What happened to articles on #astroph it's the end of the world
😱
-
What happened to articles on #astroph it's the end of the world
😱
-
What happened to articles on #astroph it's the end of the world
😱
-
What happened to articles on #astroph it's the end of the world
😱
-
What happened to articles on #astroph it's the end of the world
😱
-
Today on #astroph
"Magnetic fields at the dawn of structure formation I. The CARLA J1510+5958 proto-cluster" by A. Pagliotta @annalisa_bonafede et al.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.12522
it presents a study of the CARLA J1510+5958 proto-cluster at z = 1.72 with the JVLA L-band to infer the strength of the proto-ICM and the role of AGN at this epoch, finding a B>0.4muG lower limit there.
-
Today on #astroph
"Magnetic fields at the dawn of structure formation I. The CARLA J1510+5958 proto-cluster" by A. Pagliotta @annalisa_bonafede et al.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.12522
it presents a study of the CARLA J1510+5958 proto-cluster at z = 1.72 with the JVLA L-band to infer the strength of the proto-ICM and the role of AGN at this epoch, finding a B>0.4muG lower limit there.
-
Today on #astroph
"Magnetic fields at the dawn of structure formation I. The CARLA J1510+5958 proto-cluster" by A. Pagliotta @annalisa_bonafede et al.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.12522
it presents a study of the CARLA J1510+5958 proto-cluster at z = 1.72 with the JVLA L-band to infer the strength of the proto-ICM and the role of AGN at this epoch, finding a B>0.4muG lower limit there.
-
Today on #astroph
"Magnetic fields at the dawn of structure formation I. The CARLA J1510+5958 proto-cluster" by A. Pagliotta @annalisa_bonafede et al.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.12522
it presents a study of the CARLA J1510+5958 proto-cluster at z = 1.72 with the JVLA L-band to infer the strength of the proto-ICM and the role of AGN at this epoch, finding a B>0.4muG lower limit there.
-
Today on #astroph
"Magnetic fields at the dawn of structure formation I. The CARLA J1510+5958 proto-cluster" by A. Pagliotta @annalisa_bonafede et al.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.12522
it presents a study of the CARLA J1510+5958 proto-cluster at z = 1.72 with the JVLA L-band to infer the strength of the proto-ICM and the role of AGN at this epoch, finding a B>0.4muG lower limit there.