Testing physical models for dipolar asymmetry: From temperature to<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>space to lensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most intriguing hints of a departure from the standard cosmological model is a large-scale dipolar power asymmetry in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). If not a statistical fluke, its origins must lie in the modulation of the position-space fluctuations via a physical mechanism, which requires the observation of new modes to confirm or refute. We introduce an approach to describe such a modulation in $k$ space and calculate its effects on the CMB temperature and lensing. We fit the $k$-space modulation parameters to Planck 2015 temperature data and show that CMB lensing will not provide us with enough independent information to confirm or refute such a mechanism. However, our approach elucidates some poorly understood aspects of the asymmetry, in particular that it is weakly constrained. Also, it will be particularly useful in predicting the effectiveness of polarization in testing a physical modulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".