MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030589003 · doi:10.1086/338838

Discriminating Weak Lensing from Intrinsic Spin Correlations Using the Curl‐Gradient Decomposition

2002· article· en· W2030589003 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Crittenden, Priyamvada Natarajan, Ue‐Li Pen, Tom Theuns

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurl (programming language)PhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundWeak gravitational lensingRedshiftPolarization (electrochemistry)Distortion (music)GalaxyCosmologyAstrophysicsOpticsComputer scienceAnisotropy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distortion field defined by the ellipticities of galaxy shapes projected on the sky can be uniquely decomposed into a gradient and a curl component. If the observed ellipticities are induced by weak gravitational lensing, then the distortion field is curl free. Here we show that, in contrast, the distortion field resulting from intrinsic spin alignments is not curl free. This provides a powerful discriminant between lensing and intrinsic contributions to observed ellipticity correlations. We also show how these contributions can be disentangled statistically from the ellipticity correlations or computed locally from circular integrals of the ellipticity field. This allows for an unambiguous detection of intrinsic galaxy alignments in the data. When the distortions are dominated by lensing, as occurs at high redshifts, the decomposition provides a valuable tool for understanding properties of the noise and systematic errors. These techniques can be applied equally well to the polarization of the microwave background, where it can be used to separate curl-free scalar perturbations from those produced by gravity waves or defects.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.224 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations250
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207