COMPARISON OF ALGORITHMS FOR DETERMINATION OF ROTATION MEASURE AND FARADAY STRUCTURE. I. 1100–1400 MHZ
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
(abridged) We run a Faraday structure determination data challenge to benchmark the currently available algorithms including Faraday synthesis (previously called RM synthesis in the literature), wavelet, compressive sampling and $QU$-fitting. The frequency set is similar to POSSUM/GALFACTS with a 300 MHz bandwidth from 1.1 to 1.4 GHz. We define three figures of merit motivated by the underlying science: a) an average RM weighted by polarized intensity, RMwtd, b) the separation $\Delta\phi$ of two Faraday components and c) the reduced chi-squared. Based on the current test data of signal to noise ratio of about 32, we find that: (1) When only one Faraday thin component is present, most methods perform as expected, with occasional failures where two components are incorrectly found; (2) For two Faraday thin components, QU-fitting routines perform the best, with errors close to the theoretical ones for RMwtd, but with significantly higher errors for $\Delta\phi$. All other methods including standard Faraday synthesis frequently identify only one component when $\Delta\phi$ is below or near the width of the Faraday point spread function; (3) No methods, as currently implemented, work well for Faraday thick components due to the narrow bandwidth; (4) There exist combinations of two Faraday components which produce a large range of acceptable fits and hence large uncertainties in the derived single RMs; in these cases, different RMs lead to the same Q, U behavior, so no method can recover a unique input model.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it