MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506183496 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.103501

CMB lensing beyond the power spectrum: Cosmological constraints from the one-point probability distribution function and peak counts

2016· article· en· W2506183496 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jia Liu, J. Colin Hill, Blake D. Sherwin, Andrea Petri, Vanessa Böhm, Zoltán Haiman

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoSimons FoundationCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversity of California BerkeleyColumbia UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundPhysicsSpectral densityAstrophysicsEstimatorWeak gravitational lensingPlanckStatisticsRedshiftGalaxyAnisotropyOpticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unprecedentedly precise cosmic microwave background (CMB) data are expected from ongoing and near-future CMB stage III and IV surveys, which will yield reconstructed CMB lensing maps with effective resolution approaching several arcminutes. The small-scale CMB lensing fluctuations receive non-negligible contributions from nonlinear structure in the late-time density field. These fluctuations are not fully characterized by traditional two-point statistics, such as the power spectrum. Here, we use $N$-body ray-tracing simulations of CMB lensing maps to examine two higher-order statistics: the lensing convergence one-point probability distribution function (PDF) and peak counts. We show that these statistics contain significant information not captured by the two-point function and provide specific forecasts for the ongoing stage III Advanced Atacama Cosmology Telescope (AdvACT) experiment. Considering only the temperature-based reconstruction estimator, we forecast $9\ensuremath{\sigma}$ (PDF) and $6\ensuremath{\sigma}$ (peaks) detections of these statistics with AdvACT. Our simulation pipeline fully accounts for the non-Gaussianity of the lensing reconstruction noise, which is significant and cannot be neglected. Combining the power spectrum, PDF, and peak counts for AdvACT will tighten cosmological constraints in the ${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}_{m}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{\ensuremath{\sigma}}_{8}$ plane by $\ensuremath{\approx}30%$, compared to using the power spectrum alone.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations48
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207