MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2505362211 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/06/004

Searching for cosmic strings in CMB anisotropy maps using wavelets and curvelets

2017· article· en· W2505362211 on OpenAlexaff
L. T. Hergt, A. Amara, Robert Brandenberger, Tomasz Kacprzak, Alexandre Réfrégier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundCosmic stringString (physics)PlanckAstrophysicsAnisotropyWaveletSouth Pole TelescopeCosmic background radiationTheoretical physicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use wavelet and curvelet transforms to extract signals of cosmic strings from simulated cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature anisotropy maps, and to study the limits on the cosmic string tension which various ongoing CMB temperature anisotropy experiments will be able to achieve. We construct sky maps with size and angular resolution corresponding to various experiments. These maps contain the signals of a scaling solution of long string segments with a given string tension G μ, the contribution of the dominant Gaussian primordial cosmological fluctuations, and pixel by pixel white noise with an amplitude corresponding to the instrumental noise of the various experiments. In the case that we include white noise, we find that using curvelets we obtain lower bounds on the string tension than with wavelets. For maps with Planck specification, we obtain bounds comparable to what was obtained by the Planck collaboration [1]. Experiments with better angular resolution such as the South Pole Telescope third generation (SPT-3G) survey will be able to yield stronger limits. For maps with a specification of SPT-3G we find that string signals will be visible down to a string tension of G μ = 1.4 × 10 −7 .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207