MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lensing of Fast Radio Bursts as a Probe of Compact Dark Matter

2016· article· en· W2347092838 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julián B. Muñoz, Ely D. Kovetz, Liang Dai, Marc Kamionkowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSmithsonian Astrophysical ObservatoryJohn Templeton FoundationSimons FoundationJohns Hopkins UniversityNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsDark matterGravitational lensAstrophysicsHaloObservableWeak gravitational lensingWindow (computing)Null (SQL)AstronomyGalaxyRedshift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibility that part of the dark matter is made of massive compact halo objects (MACHOs) remains poorly constrained over a wide range of masses, and especially in the 20-100 M_{⊙} window. We show that strong gravitational lensing of extragalactic fast radio bursts (FRBs) by MACHOs of masses larger than ∼20 M_{⊙} would result in repeated FRBs with an observable time delay. Strong lensing of a FRB by a lens of mass M_{L} induces two images, separated by a typical time delay ∼few×(M_{L}/30 M_{⊙}) msec. Considering the expected FRB detection rate by upcoming experiments, such as canadian hydrogen intensity mapping experiment (CHIME), of 10^{4} FRBs per year, we should observe from tens to hundreds of repeated bursts yearly, if MACHOs in this window make up all the dark matter. A null search for echoes with just 10^{4} FRBs would constrain the fraction f_{DM} of dark matter in MACHOs to f_{DM}≲0.08 for M_{L}≳20 M_{⊙}.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations248
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207