MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2888035497 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf4bc

Joint Power Spectrum and Voxel Intensity Distribution Forecast on the CO Luminosity Function with COMAP

2019· article· en· W2888035497 on OpenAlexaff
H. T. Ihle, Dongwoo T. Chung, George Stein, Marcelo A. Alvarez, J. Richard Bond, Patrick C. Breysse, Kieran Cleary, H. K. Eriksen, Marie Kristine Foss, Joshua Ott Gundersen, Stuart Harper, Norman Murray, Hamsa Padmanabhan, M. Viero, I. K. Wehus

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMarkov chain Monte CarloLuminosityMonte Carlo methodHaloCovarianceLuminosity functionSpectral densityStatistical physicsAstrophysicsStatisticsGalaxyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We develop a framework for joint constraints on the CO luminosity function based on power spectra (PS) and voxel intensity distributions (VID) and apply this to simulations of CO Mapping Array Pathfinder (COMAP), a CO intensity mapping experiment. This Bayesian framework is based on a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampler coupled to a Gaussian likelihood with a joint PS + VID covariance matrix computed from a large number of fiducial simulations and re-calibrated with a small number of simulations per MCMC step. The simulations are based on dark matter halos from fast peak patch simulations combined with the L CO(M halo) model of Li et al. We find that the relative power to constrain the CO luminosity function depends on the luminosity range of interest. In particular, the VID is more sensitive at large luminosities, while the PS and the VID are both competitive at small and intermediate luminosities. The joint analysis is superior to using either observable separately. When averaging over CO luminosities ranging between , and over 10 cosmological realizations of COMAP Phase 2, the uncertainties (in dex) are larger by 58% and 30% for the PS and VID, respectively, when compared to the joint analysis (PS + VID). This method is generally applicable to any other random field, with a complicated likelihood, as long a fast simulation procedure is available.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations50
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→