MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2247847363 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/166

PROSPECTS FOR DELENSING THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND FOR STUDYING INFLATION

2015· article· en· W2247847363 on OpenAlexaff
G. Simard, Duncan Hanson, G. P. Holder

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundPhysicsGravitational lensAstrophysicsPolarization (electrochemistry)Gravitational waveCosmic infrared backgroundInflation (cosmology)AnisotropyAstronomyOpticsGalaxyRedshift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A detection of excess cosmic microwave background (CMB) B-mode polarization on large scales allows the possibility of measuring not only the amplitude of these fluctuations but also their scale dependence, which can be parametrized as the tensor tilt n T . Measurements of this scale dependence will be hindered by the secondary B-mode polarization anisotropy induced by gravitational lensing. Fortunately, these contaminating B modes can be estimated and removed with a sufficiently good estimate of the intervening gravitational potential and a good map of CMB E-mode polarization. We present forecasts for how well these gravitational lensing B modes can be removed, assuming that the lensing potential can be estimated either internally from CMB data or using maps of the cosmic infrared background (CIB) as a tracer. We find that CIB maps are as effective as CMB maps for delensing at the noise levels of the current generation of CMB experiments, while the CMB maps themselves will ultimately be best for delensing at polarization noise below = 1 μ K arcmin. At this sensitivity level, CMB delensing will be able to measure n T to an accuracy of 0.02 or better, which corresponds to the tensor tilt predicted by the consistency relation for single-field slow-roll models of inflation with r = 0.2. However, CIB-based delensing will not be sufficient for constraining n T in simple inflationary models.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations63
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207