Smear fitting: a new image-deconvolution method for interferometric data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new technique is presented for producing images from interferometric data. The method, ‘smear fitting’, makes the constraints necessary for interferometric imaging double as a model, with uncertainties, of the sky brightness distribution. It does this by modelling the sky with a set of functions and then convolving each component with its own elliptical Gaussian to account for the uncertainty in its shape and location that arises from noise. This yields much sharper resolution than clean for significantly detected features, without sacrificing any sensitivity. Using appropriate functional forms for the components provides both a scientifically interesting model and imaging constraints that tend to be better than those used by traditional deconvolution methods. This allows it to avoid the most serious problems that limit the imaging quality of those methods. Comparisons of smear fitting to clean and maximum entropy are given, using both real and simulated observations. It is also shown that the famous Rayleigh criterion (resolution = wavelength/baseline) is inappropriate for interferometers as it does not consider the reliability of the measurements.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it