MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Probing Neutrino Hierarchy and Chirality via Wakes

2016· article· en· W1753866820 on OpenAlexafffund
Hong-Ming Zhu, Ue‐Li Pen, Xuelei Chen, Derek Inman

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaChinese Academy of SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPhysicsNeutrinoDark matterWeak gravitational lensingRedshiftAstrophysicsGalaxyParticle physicsRedshift surveyAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relic neutrinos are expected to acquire a bulk relative velocity with respect to the dark matter at low redshifts, and neutrino wakes are expected to develop downstream of the dark matter halos. We propose a method of measuring the neutrino mass based on this mechanism. This neutrino wake will cause a dipole distortion of the galaxy-galaxy lensing pattern. This effect could be detected by combining upcoming lensing surveys with a low redshift galaxy survey or a 21 cm intensity mapping survey, which can map the neutrino flow field. The data obtained with LSST and Euclid should enable us to make a positive detection if the three neutrino masses are quasidegenerate with each neutrino mass of ∼0.1 eV, and a future high precision 21 cm lensing survey would allow the normal hierarchy and inverted hierarchy cases to be distinguished, and even the right-handed Dirac neutrinos may be detectable.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207