MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795195616 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.103536

Tensions between direct measurements of the lens power spectrum from <i>Planck</i> data

2018· article· en· W2795195616 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pavel Motloch, Wayne Hu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueKavli FoundationUniversity of ChicagoSimons FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Department of EnergyGovernment of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPlanckCosmic microwave backgroundPhysicsSpectral densityLambdaAstrophysicsGravitational lensRedshiftSpectral lineStrong gravitational lensingOpticsQuantum mechanicsAnisotropyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We apply a recently developed method to directly measure the gravitational lensing power spectrum from CMB power spectra to the Planck satellite data. This method allows us to analyze the tension between the temperature power spectrum and lens reconstruction in a model-independent way. Even when allowing for arbitrary variations in the lensing power spectrum, the tension remains at the $2.4\ensuremath{\sigma}$ level. By separating the lensing and unlensed high redshift information in the CMB power spectra, we also show that under $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$ the two are in tension at a similar level, whereas the unlensed information is consistent with lensing reconstruction. These anomalies are driven by the smoother acoustic peaks relative to $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$ at $\ensuremath{\ell}\ensuremath{\sim}1250--1500$. Both tensions relax slightly when polarization data are considered. This technique also isolates the one combination of the lensing power spectrum multipoles that the Planck CMB power spectra currently constrain and can be straightforwardly generalized to future data when CMB power spectra constrain multiple aspects of lensing which are themselves correlated with lensing reconstruction.

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)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations47
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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