MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474583417 · doi:10.1017/s1743921316009637

Non Gaussian Minkowski functionals and extrema counts for CMB maps

2014· article· en· W2474583417 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundMinkowski spaceMaxima and minimaCurvatureGaussianSpherical harmonicsEuler's formulaIsotropySky

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the conference presentation we have reviewed the theory of non-Gaussian geometrical measures for 3D Cosmic Web of the matter distribution in the Universe and 2D sky data, such as Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) maps that was developed in a series of our papers. The theory leverages symmetry of isotropic statistics such as Minkowski functionals and extrema counts to develop post Gaussian expansion of the statistics in orthogonal polynomials of invariant descriptors of the field, its first and second derivatives. The application of the approach to 2D fields defined on a spherical sky was suggested, but never rigorously developed. In this paper we present such development treating the effects of the curvature and finiteness of the spherical space $S_2$ exactly, without relying on flat-sky approximation. We present Minkowski functionals, including Euler characteristic and extrema counts to the first non-Gaussian correction, suitable for weakly non-Gaussian fields on a sphere, of which CMB is the prime example.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207