The significance of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We revisit the state of the integrated Sachs–Wolfe (ISW) effect measurements in light of newly available data and address criticisms about the measurements which have recently been raised. We update the data set previously assembled by Giannantonio et al. to include new data releases for both the cosmic microwave background and the large-scale structure of the Universe. We find that our updated results are consistent with previous measurements. By fitting a single template amplitude, we now obtain a combined significance of the ISW detection at the 4.4σ level, which fluctuates by ∼0.4σ when alternative data cuts and analysis assumptions are considered. We also make new tests for systematic contaminations of the data, focusing in particular on the issues raised by Sawangwit et al. Amongst them, we address the rotation test, which aims at checking for possible systematics by correlating pairs of randomly rotated maps. We find results consistent with the expected data covariance, no evidence for enhanced correlation on any preferred axis of rotation, and therefore no indication of any additional systematic contamination. We publicly release the results, the covariance matrix and the sky maps used to obtain them.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".