MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2835244098 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf238

Evolution of Dark Energy Reconstructed from the Latest Observations

2018· article· en· W2835244098 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDark energyBayesian probabilityDark matterCOSMIC cancer databaseNonparametric statisticsBayesian inferenceDynamical systems theoryEnergy (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We reconstruct the evolution of the dark energy (DE) density using a nonparametric Bayesian approach from a combination of the latest observational data. We caution against parameterizing DE in terms of its equation of state as it can be singular in modified gravity models, and using it introduces a bias preventing negative effective DE densities. We find a 3.7 σ preference for an evolving effective DE density with interesting features. For example, it oscillates around the Λ cold dark matter prediction at z ≲ 0.7, and could be negative at z ≳ 2.3; DE can be pressure-less at multiple redshifts, and a short period of cosmic deceleration is allowed at 0.1 ≲ z ≲ 0.2. We perform the reconstruction for several choices of the prior, as well as a evidence-weighted reconstruction. We find that some of the dynamical features, such as the oscillatory behavior of the DE density, are supported by the Bayesian evidence, which is a first detection of a dynamical DE with a positive Bayesian evidence. The evidence-weighted reconstruction prefers a dynamical DE at a (2.5 ± 0.06) σ significance level.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations125
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207