MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Constraining<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:math>Gravity Theory Using Weak Lensing Peak Statistics from the Canada-France-Hawii-Telescope Lensing Survey

2016· article· lv· W2491855816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiangkun Liu, Baojiu Li, Gong‐Bo Zhao, Mu‐Chen Chiu, Fang Wei, Chuzhong Pan, Qiao Wang, Wei Du, Shuo Yuan, Liping Fu, Zuhui Fan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of SciencesScience and Technology Facilities CouncilShanghai Normal UniversityScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai MunicipalityBritish Infection SocietyChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaDurham University
KeywordsPhysicsGalaxyAstrophysicsWeak gravitational lensingHaloAlgorithmStatisticsRedshiftMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this Letter, we report the observational constraints on the Hu-Sawicki f(R) theory derived from weak lensing peak abundances, which are closely related to the mass function of massive halos. In comparison with studies using optical or x-ray clusters of galaxies, weak lensing peak analyses have the advantages of not relying on mass-baryonic observable calibrations. With observations from the Canada-France-Hawaii-Telescope Lensing Survey, our peak analyses give rise to a tight constraint on the model parameter |f_{R0}| for n=1. The 95% C.L. is log_{10}|f_{R0}|<-4.82 given WMAP9 priors on (Ω_{m}, A_{s}). With Planck15 priors, the corresponding result is log_{10}|f_{R0}|<-5.16.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations82
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207