MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves Using <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>, WMAP, and New BICEP2/<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> Observations through the 2015 Season

2018· article· lv· W2896555815 on OpenAlexafffund
P. A. R. Ade, Zeeshan Ahmed, R. W. Aikin, K. D. Alexander, D. Barkats, S. J. Benton, C. A. Bischoff, J. J. Bock, Rachel Bowens-Rubin, J. A. Brevik, I. Buder, E. Bullock, V. Buza, J. Cornelison, B. P. Crill, M. Crumrine, M. Dierickx, L. Duband, Cora Dvorkin, J. P. Filippini, S. Fliescher, J. Grayson, G. Hall, M. Halpern, S. Harrison, S. R. Hildebrandt, G. C. Hilton, H. Hui, K. D. Irwin, J. Kang, K. S. Karkare, E. Karpel, J. P. Kaufman, Brian Keating, S. Kefeli, S. A. Kernasovskiy, J. M. Kovac, C. L. Kuo, Nicole Larsen, K. Lau, E. M. Leitch, M. Lueker, K. G. Megerian, Lorenzo Moncelsi, Toshiya Namikawa, C. B. Netterfield, H. T. Nguyen, R. O’Brient, R. W. Ogburn, S. Palladino, C. Pryke, B. Racine, S. Richter, A. Schillaci, R. Schwarz, C. D. Sheehy, T. St. Germaine, Z. Staniszewski, B. Steinbach, R. V. Sudiwala, G. P. Teply, K. L. Thompson, J. E. Tolan, C. Tucker, Anthony Turner, C. Umiltà, A. G. Vieregg, A. Wandui, A. C. Weber, Donald Wiebe, J. Willmert, C. L. Wong, W. L. K. Wu, Huan Yang, K. W. Yoon, C. Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of British Columbia
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilJet Propulsion LaboratoryCanada Foundation for InnovationU.S. Department of EnergyGordon and Betty Moore FoundationW. M. Keck FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPlanckPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundCMB cold spotGravitational waveAstrophysicsSkyCosmic background radiationSpectral lineAstronomyOpticsAnisotropy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present results from an analysis of all data taken by the bicep2/Keck CMB polarization experiments up to and including the 2015 observing season. This includes the first Keck Array observations at 220 GHz and additional observations at 95 and 150 GHz. The Q and U maps reach depths of 5.2, 2.9, and 26 μK_{CMB} arcmin at 95, 150, and 220 GHz, respectively, over an effective area of ≈400 square degrees. The 220 GHz maps achieve a signal to noise on polarized dust emission approximately equal to that of Planck at 353 GHz. We take auto and cross spectra between these maps and publicly available WMAP and Planck maps at frequencies from 23 to 353 GHz. We evaluate the joint likelihood of the spectra versus a multicomponent model of lensed-ΛCDM+r+dust+synchrotron+noise. The foreground model has seven parameters, and we impose priors on some of these using external information from Planck and WMAP derived from larger regions of sky. The model is shown to be an adequate description of the data at the current noise levels. The likelihood analysis yields the constraint r_{0.05}<0.07 at 95% confidence, which tightens to r_{0.05}<0.06 in conjunction with Planck temperature measurements and other data. The lensing signal is detected at 8.8σ significance. Running a maximum likelihood search on simulations we obtain unbiased results and find that σ(r)=0.020. These are the strongest constraints to date on primordial gravitational waves.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations495
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207