More Like this

1. SHARP – VIII. J0924+0219 lens mass distribution and time-delay prediction through adaptive-optics imaging

   https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac1081  

   Chen, Geoff C-F ; Fassnacht, Christopher D ; Suyu, Sherry H ; Koopmans, Léon V ; Lagattuta, David J ; McKean, John P ; Auger, Matt W ; Vegetti, Simona ; Treu, Tommaso ( May 2022 , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society)

   ABSTRACT Strongly lensed quasars can provide measurements of the Hubble constant (H0) independent of any other methods. One of the key ingredients is exquisite high-resolution imaging data, such as Hubble Space Telescope (HST) imaging and adaptive-optics (AO) imaging from ground-based telescopes, which provide strong constraints on the mass distribution of the lensing galaxy. In this work, we expand on the previous analysis of three time-delay lenses with AO imaging (RX J1131−1231, HE 0435−1223, and PG 1115+080), and perform a joint analysis of J0924+0219 by using AO imaging from the Keck telescope, obtained as part of the Strong lensing at High Angular Resolution Program (SHARP) AO effort, with HST imaging to constrain the mass distribution of the lensing galaxy. Under the assumption of a flat Λ cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model with fixed Ωm = 0.3, we show that by marginalizing over two different kinds of mass models (power-law and composite models) and their transformed mass profiles via a mass-sheet transformation, we obtain $\Delta t_{\rm BA}=6.89\substack{+0.8\\-0.7}\, h^{-1}\hat{\sigma }_{v}^{2}$ d, $\Delta t_{\rm CA}=10.7\substack{+1.6\\-1.2}\, h^{-1}\hat{\sigma }_{v}^{2}$ d, and $\Delta t_{\rm DA}=7.70\substack{+1.0\\-0.9}\, h^{-1}\hat{\sigma }_{v}^{2}$ d, where $h=H_{0}/100\,\rm km\, s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}$ is the dimensionless Hubble constant and $\hat{\sigma }_{v}=\sigma ^{\rm ob}_{v}/(280\,\rm km\, s^{-1})$ is the scaled dimensionless velocity dispersion. Future measurements of timemore »delays with 10 per cent uncertainty and velocity dispersion with 5 per cent uncertainty would yield a H0 constraint of ∼15 per cent precision.« less
2. Recent Advances in the TUH EEG Corpus: Improving the Interrater Agreement for Artifacts and Epileptiform Events

   Buckwalter, Grace Chhin ( December 2021 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)

   The Temple University Hospital EEG Corpus (TUEG) [1] is the largest publicly available EEG corpus of its type and currently has over 5,000 subscribers (we currently average 35 new subscribers a week). Several valuable subsets of this corpus have been developed including the Temple University Hospital EEG Seizure Corpus (TUSZ) [2] and the Temple University Hospital EEG Artifact Corpus (TUAR) [3]. TUSZ contains manually annotated seizure events and has been widely used to develop seizure detection and prediction technology [4]. TUAR contains manually annotated artifacts and has been used to improve machine learning performance on seizure detection tasks [5]. In this poster, we will discuss recent improvements made to both corpora that are creating opportunities to improve machine learning performance. Two major concerns that were raised when v1.5.2 of TUSZ was released for the Neureka 2020 Epilepsy Challenge were: (1) the subjects contained in the training, development (validation) and blind evaluation sets were not mutually exclusive, and (2) high frequency seizures were not accurately annotated in all files. Regarding (1), there were 50 subjects in dev, 50 subjects in eval, and 592 subjects in train. There was one subject common to dev and eval, five subjects common to dev andmore »train, and 13 subjects common between eval and train. Though this does not substantially influence performance for the current generation of technology, it could be a problem down the line as technology improves. Therefore, we have rebuilt the partitions of the data so that this overlap was removed. This required augmenting the evaluation and development data sets with new subjects that had not been previously annotated so that the size of these subsets remained approximately the same. Since these annotations were done by a new group of annotators, special care was taken to make sure the new annotators followed the same practices as the previous generations of annotators. Part of our quality control process was to have the new annotators review all previous annotations. This rigorous training coupled with a strict quality control process where annotators review a significant amount of each other’s work ensured that there is high interrater agreement between the two groups (kappa statistic greater than 0.8) [6]. In the process of reviewing this data, we also decided to split long files into a series of smaller segments to facilitate processing of the data. Some subscribers found it difficult to process long files using Python code, which tends to be very memory intensive. We also found it inefficient to manipulate these long files in our annotation tool. In this release, the maximum duration of any single file is limited to 60 mins. This increased the number of edf files in the dev set from 1012 to 1832. Regarding (2), as part of discussions of several issues raised by a few subscribers, we discovered some files only had low frequency epileptiform events annotated (defined as events that ranged in frequency from 2.5 Hz to 3 Hz), while others had events annotated that contained significant frequency content above 3 Hz. Though there were not many files that had this type of activity, it was enough of a concern to necessitate reviewing the entire corpus. An example of an epileptiform seizure event with frequency content higher than 3 Hz is shown in Figure 1. Annotating these additional events slightly increased the number of seizure events. In v1.5.2, there were 673 seizures, while in v1.5.3 there are 1239 events. One of the fertile areas for technology improvements is artifact reduction. Artifacts and slowing constitute the two major error modalities in seizure detection [3]. This was a major reason we developed TUAR. It can be used to evaluate artifact detection and suppression technology as well as multimodal background models that explicitly model artifacts. An issue with TUAR was the practicality of the annotation tags used when there are multiple simultaneous events. An example of such an event is shown in Figure 2. In this section of the file, there is an overlap of eye movement, electrode artifact, and muscle artifact events. We previously annotated such events using a convention that included annotating background along with any artifact that is present. The artifacts present would either be annotated with a single tag (e.g., MUSC) or a coupled artifact tag (e.g., MUSC+ELEC). When multiple channels have background, the tags become crowded and difficult to identify. This is one reason we now support a hierarchical annotation format using XML – annotations can be arbitrarily complex and support overlaps in time. Our annotators also reviewed specific eye movement artifacts (e.g., eye flutter, eyeblinks). Eye movements are often mistaken as seizures due to their similar morphology [7][8]. We have improved our understanding of ocular events and it has allowed us to annotate artifacts in the corpus more carefully. In this poster, we will present statistics on the newest releases of these corpora and discuss the impact these improvements have had on machine learning research. We will compare TUSZ v1.5.3 and TUAR v2.0.0 with previous versions of these corpora. We will release v1.5.3 of TUSZ and v2.0.0 of TUAR in Fall 2021 prior to the symposium. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation’s Industrial Innovation and Partnerships (IIP) Research Experience for Undergraduates award number 1827565. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] I. Obeid and J. Picone, “The Temple University Hospital EEG Data Corpus,” in Augmentation of Brain Function: Facts, Fiction and Controversy. Volume I: Brain-Machine Interfaces, 1st ed., vol. 10, M. A. Lebedev, Ed. Lausanne, Switzerland: Frontiers Media S.A., 2016, pp. 394 398. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00196. [2] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [3] A. Hamid et, al., “The Temple University Artifact Corpus: An Annotated Corpus of EEG Artifacts.” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2020, pp. 1-3. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9353647. [4] Y. Roy, R. Iskander, and J. Picone, “The NeurekaTM 2020 Epilepsy Challenge,” NeuroTechX, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://neureka-challenge.com/. [Accessed: 01-Dec-2021]. [5] S. Rahman, A. Hamid, D. Ochal, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improving the Quality of the TUSZ Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2020, pp. 1–5. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9353635. [6] V. Shah, E. von Weltin, T. Ahsan, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “On the Use of Non-Experts for Generation of High-Quality Annotations of Seizure Events,” Available: https://www.isip.picone press.com/publications/unpublished/journals/2019/elsevier_cn/ira. [Accessed: 01-Dec-2021]. [7] D. Ochal, S. Rahman, S. Ferrell, T. Elseify, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “The Temple University Hospital EEG Corpus: Annotation Guidelines,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/2020/tuh_eeg/annotations/. [8] D. Strayhorn, “The Atlas of Adult Electroencephalography,” EEG Atlas Online, 2014. [Online]. Availabl« less
3. Radio Analysis of SN2004C Reveals an Unusual CSM Density Profile as a Harbinger of Core Collapse

   https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c26  

   DeMarchi, Lindsay ; Margutti, R. ; Dittman, J. ; Brunthaler, A. ; Milisavljevic, D. ; Bietenholz, Michael F. ; Stauffer, C. ; Brethauer, D. ; Coppejans, D. ; Auchettl, K. ; et al ( October 2022 , The Astrophysical Journal)

   We present extensive multifrequency Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) and Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) observations of the radio-bright supernova (SN) IIb SN 2004C that span ∼40–2793 days post-explosion. We interpret the temporal evolution of the radio spectral energy distribution in the context of synchrotron self-absorbed emission from the explosion’s forward shock as it expands in the circumstellar medium (CSM) previously sculpted by the mass-loss history of the stellar progenitor. VLBA observations and modeling of the VLA data point to a blastwave with average velocity ∼0.06cthat carries an energy of ≈10⁴⁹erg. Our modeling further reveals a flat CSM density profileρ_CSM∝R^{−0.03±0.22}up to a break radiusR_br≈ (1.96 ± 0.10) × 10¹⁶cm, with a steep density gradient followingρ_CSM∝R^−2.3±0.5at larger radii. We infer that the flat part of the density profile corresponds to a CSM shell with mass ∼0.021M_☉, and that the progenitor’s effective mass-loss rate varied with time over the range (50–500) × 10⁻⁵M_☉yr⁻¹for an adopted wind velocityv_w= 1000 km s⁻¹and shock microphysical parametersϵ_e= 0.1,ϵ_B= 0.01. These results add to the mounting observational evidence for departures from the traditional single-wind mass-loss scenarios in evolved, massive stars in the centuries leading up to core collapse. Potentially viable scenarios include mass lossmore »powered by gravity waves and/or interaction with a binary companion.

   « less
4. Magellan/IMACS Spectroscopy of Grus I: A Low Metallicity Ultra-faint Dwarf Galaxy*

   https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac96ed  

   Chiti, Anirudh ; Simon, Joshua D. ; Frebel, Anna ; Pace, Andrew B. ; Ji, Alexander P. ; Li, Ting S. ( November 2022 , The Astrophysical Journal)

   We present a chemodynamical study of the Grus I ultra-faint dwarf galaxy (UFD) from medium-resolution (R∼ 11,000) Magellan/IMACS spectra of its individual member stars. We identify eight confirmed members of Grus I, based on their low metallicities and coherent radial velocities, and four candidate members for which only velocities are derived. In contrast to previous work, we find that Grus I has a very low mean metallicity of 〈[Fe/H]〉 = −2.62 ± 0.11 dex, making it one of the most metal-poor UFDs. Grus I has a systemic radial velocity of −143.5 ± 1.2 km s⁻¹and a velocity dispersion of${\sigma }_{\mathrm{rv}}={2.5}_{-0.8}^{+1.3}$km s⁻¹, which results in a dynamical mass of$M_{1/2}(r_h)=8_{-4}^{+12}\times {10}^5$M_⊙and a mass-to-light ratio ofM/L_V=${440}_{-250}^{+650}$M_⊙/L_⊙. Under the assumption of dynamical equilibrium, our analysis confirms that Grus I is a dark-matter-dominated UFD (M/L> 80M_⊙/L_⊙). However, we do not resolve a metallicity dispersion (σ_[Fe/H]< 0.44 dex). Our results indicate that Grus I is a fairly typical UFD with parameters that agree with mass–metallicity and metallicity-luminosity trends for faint galaxies. This agreement suggests that Grus I has not lost an especially significant amount of mass from tidal encounters with the Milky Way, in linemore »with its orbital parameters. Intriguingly, Grus I has among the lowest central densities (${\rho }_{1/2}\sim {3.5}_{-2.1}^{+5.7}\times {10}^7$M_⊙kpc⁻³) of the UFDs that are not known to be tidally disrupting. Models of the formation and evolution of UFDs will need to explain the diversity of these central densities, in addition to any diversity in the outer regions of these relic galaxies.

   « less
5. Florida mangrove saltmarsh reference surface soils

   https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/0e08cbe07c84488cb7b9dd16669946d0  

   Lewis, David Bruce ( January 2021 )

   Abstract

   Site description. This data package consists of data obtained from sampling surface soil (the 0-7.6 cm depth profile) in black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) dominated forest and black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) saltmarsh along the Gulf of Mexico coastline in peninsular west-central Florida, USA. This location has a subtropical climate with mean daily temperatures ranging from 15.4 °C in January to 27.8 °C in August, and annual precipitation of 1336 mm. Precipitation falls as rain primarily between June and September. Tides are semi-diurnal, with 0.57 m median amplitudes during the year preceding sampling (U.S. NOAA National Ocean Service, Clearwater Beach, Florida, station 8726724). Sea-level rise is 4.0 ± 0.6 mm per year (1973-2020 trend, mean ± 95 % confidence interval, NOAA NOS Clearwater Beach station). The A. germinans mangrove zone is either adjacent to water or fringed on the seaward side by a narrow band of red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle). A near-monoculture of J. roemerianus is often adjacent to and immediately landward of the A. germinans zone. The transition from the mangrove to the J. roemerianus zone is variable in our study area. An abrupt edge between closed-canopy mangrove and J. roemerianus monoculture may extend for up to several hundred meters in some locations, while other stretches of ecotone present a gradual transition where smaller, widely spaced trees are interspersed into the herbaceous marsh. Juncus roemerianus then extends landward to a high marsh patchwork of succulent halophytes (including Salicornia bigellovi, Sesuvium sp., and Batis maritima), scattered dwarf mangrove, and salt pans, followed in turn by upland vegetation that includes Pinus sp. and Serenoa repens. Field design and sample collection. We established three study sites spaced at approximately 5 km intervals along the western coastline of the central Florida peninsula. The sites consisted of the Salt Springs (28.3298°, -82.7274°), Energy Marine Center (28.2903°, -82.7278°), and Green Key (28.2530°, -82.7496°) sites on the Gulf of Mexico coastline in Pasco County, Florida, USA. At each site, we established three plot pairs, each consisting of one saltmarsh plot and one mangrove plot. Plots were 50 m^2 in size. Plots pairs within a site were separated by 230-1070 m, and the mangrove and saltmarsh plots composing a pair were 70-170 m apart. All plot pairs consisted of directly adjacent patches of mangrove forest and J. roemerianus saltmarsh, with the mangrove forests exhibiting a closed canopy and a tree architecture (height 4-6 m, crown width 1.5-3 m). Mangrove plots were located at approximately the midpoint between the seaward edge (water-mangrove interface) and landward edge (mangrove-marsh interface) of the mangrove zone. Saltmarsh plots were located 20-25 m away from any mangrove trees and into the J. roemerianus zone (i.e., landward from the mangrove-marsh interface). Plot pairs were coarsely similar in geomorphic setting, as all were located on the Gulf of Mexico coastline, rather than within major sheltering formations like Tampa Bay, and all plot pairs fit the tide-dominated domain of the Woodroffe classification (Woodroffe, 2002, &#34;Coasts: Form, Process and Evolution&#34;, Cambridge University Press), given their conspicuous semi-diurnal tides. There was nevertheless some geomorphic variation, as some plot pairs were directly open to the Gulf of Mexico while others sat behind keys and spits or along small tidal creeks. Our use of a plot-pair approach is intended to control for this geomorphic variation. Plot center elevations (cm above mean sea level, NAVD 88) were estimated by overlaying the plot locations determined with a global positioning system (Garmin GPS 60, Olathe, KS, USA) on a LiDAR-derived bare-earth digital elevation model (Dewberry, Inc., 2019). The digital elevation model had a vertical accuracy of ± 10 cm (95 % CI) and a horizontal accuracy of ± 116 cm (95 % CI). Soil samples were collected via coring at low tide in June 2011. From each plot, we collected a composite soil sample consisting of three discrete 5.1 cm diameter soil cores taken at equidistant points to 7.6 cm depth. Cores were taken by tapping a sleeve into the soil until its top was flush with the soil surface, sliding a hand under the core, and lifting it up. Cores were then capped and transferred on ice to our laboratory at the University of South Florida (Tampa, Florida, USA), where they were combined in plastic zipper bags, and homogenized by hand into plot-level composite samples on the day they were collected. A damp soil subsample was immediately taken from each composite sample to initiate 1 y incubations for determination of active C and N (see below). The remainder of each composite sample was then placed in a drying oven (60 °C) for 1 week with frequent mixing of the soil to prevent aggregation and liberate water. Organic wetland soils are sometimes dried at 70 °C, however high drying temperatures can volatilize non-water liquids and oxidize and decompose organic matter, so 50 °C is also a common drying temperature for organic soils (Gardner 1986, &#34;Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1&#34;, Soil Science Society of America); we accordingly chose 60 °C as a compromise between sufficient water removal and avoidance of non-water mass loss. Bulk density was determined as soil dry mass per core volume (adding back the dry mass equivalent of the damp subsample removed prior to drying). Dried subsamples were obtained for determination of soil organic matter (SOM), mineral texture composition, and extractable and total carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) within the following week. Sample analyses. A dried subsample was apportioned from each composite sample to determine SOM as mass loss on ignition at 550 °C for 4 h. After organic matter was removed from soil via ignition, mineral particle size composition was determined using a combination of wet sieving and density separation in 49 mM (3 %) sodium hexametaphosphate ((NaPO_3)_6) following procedures in Kettler et al. (2001, Soil Science Society of America Journal 65, 849-852). The percentage of dry soil mass composed of silt and clay particles (hereafter, fines) was calculated as the mass lost from dispersed mineral soil after sieving (0.053 mm mesh sieve). Fines could have been slightly underestimated if any clay particles were burned off during the preceding ignition of soil. An additional subsample was taken from each composite sample to determine extractable N and organic C concentrations via 0.5 M potassium sulfate (K_2SO_4) extractions. We combined soil and extractant (ratio of 1 g dry soil:5 mL extractant) in plastic bottles, reciprocally shook the slurry for 1 h at 120 rpm, and then gravity filtered it through Fisher G6 (1.6 μm pore size) glass fiber filters, followed by colorimetric detection of nitrite (NO_2^-) &#43; nitrate (NO_3^-) and ammonium (NH_4^&#43;) in the filtrate (Hood Nowotny et al., 2010,Soil Science Society of America Journal 74, 1018-1027) using a microplate spectrophotometer (Biotek Epoch, Winooski, VT, USA). Filtrate was also analyzed for dissolved organic C (referred to hereafter as extractable organic C) and total dissolved N via combustion and oxidation followed by detection of the evolved CO_2 and N oxide gases on a Formacs HT TOC/TN analyzer (Skalar, Breda, The Netherlands). Extractable organic N was then computed as total dissolved N in filtrate minus extractable mineral N (itself the sum of extractable NH_4-N and NO_2-N &#43; NO_3-N). We determined soil total C and N from dried, milled subsamples subjected to elemental analysis (ECS 4010, Costech, Inc., Valencia, CA, USA) at the University of South Florida Stable Isotope Laboratory. Median concentration of inorganic C in unvegetated surface soil at our sites is 0.5 % of soil mass (Anderson, 2019, Univ. of South Florida M.S. thesis via methods in Wang et al., 2011, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 174, 241-257). Inorganic C concentrations are likely even lower in our samples from under vegetation, where organic matter would dilute the contribution of inorganic C to soil mass. Nevertheless, the presence of a small inorganic C pool in our soils may be counted in the total C values we report. Extractable organic C is necessarily of organic C origin given the method (sparging with HCl) used in detection. Active C and N represent the fractions of organic C and N that are mineralizable by soil microorganisms under aerobic conditions in long-term soil incubations. To quantify active C and N, 60 g of field-moist soil were apportioned from each composite sample, placed in a filtration apparatus, and incubated in the dark at 25 °C and field capacity moisture for 365 d (as in Lewis et al., 2014, Ecosphere 5, art59). Moisture levels were maintained by frequently weighing incubated soil and wetting them up to target mass. Daily CO_2 flux was quantified on 29 occasions at 0.5-3 week intervals during the incubation period (with shorter intervals earlier in the incubation), and these per day flux rates were integrated over the 365 d period to compute an estimate of active C. Observations of per day flux were made by sealing samples overnight in airtight chambers fitted with septa and quantifying headspace CO_2 accumulation by injecting headspace samples (obtained through the septa via needle and syringe) into an infrared gas analyzer (PP Systems EGM 4, Amesbury, MA, USA). To estimate active N, each incubated sample was leached with a C and N free, 35 psu solution containing micronutrients (Nadelhoffer, 1990, Soil Science Society of America Journal 54, 411-415) on 19 occasions at increasing 1-6 week intervals during the 365 d incubation, and then extracted in 0.5 M K_2SO_4 at the end of the incubation in order to remove any residual mineral N. Active N was then quantified as the total mass of mineral N leached and extracted. Mineral N in leached and extracted solutions was detected as NH_4-N and NO_2-N &#43; NO_3-N via colorimetry as above. This incubation technique precludes new C and N inputs and persistently leaches mineral N, forcing microorganisms to meet demand by mineralizing existing pools, and thereby directly assays the potential activity of soil organic C and N pools present at the time of soil sampling. Because this analysis commences with disrupting soil physical structure, it is biased toward higher estimates of active fractions. Calculations. Non-mobile C and N fractions were computed as total C and N concentrations minus the extractable and active fractions of each element. This data package reports surface-soil constituents (moisture, fines, SOM, and C and N pools and fractions) in both gravimetric units (mass constituent / mass soil) and areal units (mass constituent / soil surface area integrated through 7.6 cm soil depth, the depth of sampling). Areal concentrations were computed as X × D × 7.6, where X is the gravimetric concentration of a soil constituent, D is soil bulk density (g dry soil / cm^3), and 7.6 is the sampling depth in cm.
   More>>