MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A new method to determine large scale structure from the luminosity distance

2014· article· en· W1969308024 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio Enea Romano, Hsu-Wen Chiang, Pisin Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsLuminosity distanceAnsatzExact solutions in general relativityRedshiftCosmological constantAstrophysicsApplied mathematicsClassical mechanicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The luminosity distance can be used to determine the properties of large scale structure around the observer. To this purpose we develop a new inversion method to map luminosity distance to a LTB metric based on the use of the exact analytical solution for Einstein equations. The main advantages of this approach are an improved numerical accuracy and stability, an exact analytical setting of the initial conditions for the differential equations which need to be solved and the validity for any sign of the functions determining the LTB geometry. Given the fully analytical form of the differential equations, this method also simplifies the calculation of the red-shift expansion around the apparent horizon point where the numerical solution becomes unstable. We test the method by inverting the supernovae Ia luminosity distance function corresponding to the the best fit $\Lambda CDM$ model. We find that only a limited range of initial conditions is compatible with observations, or a transition from red to blue shift can occur at relatively low redshift. Despite LTB solutions without a cosmological constant have been shown not to be compatible with all different set of available observational data, those studies normally fit data assuming a special functional ansatz for the inhomogeneity profile, which often depend only on few parameters. Inversion methods on the contrary are able to fully explore the freedom in fixing the functions which determine a LTB solution. Another important possible application is not about LTB solutions as cosmological models, but rather as tools to study the effects on the observations made by a generic observer located in an inhomogeneous region of the Universe where a fully non perturbative treatment involving exact solutions of Einstein equations is required.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207