MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959996182 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.083513

Target neutrino mass precision for determining the neutrino hierarchy

2020· article· en· W2959996182 on OpenAlexaff
Constance Mahony, Boris Leistedt, Hiranya V. Peiris, Jonathan Braden, Benjamin Joachimi, A. Korn, L. Cremonesi, R. J. Nichol

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNeutrino Physics Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilSeventh Framework ProgrammeImpact FundVetenskapsrådetH2020 European Research CouncilNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationUniversity College LondonLeverhulme Trust
KeywordsNeutrinoHierarchyPhysicsNeutrino oscillationSigmaParticle physicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent works combining neutrino oscillation and cosmological data to determine the neutrino hierarchy found a range of odds in favor of the normal hierarchy. These results arise from differing approaches to incorporating prior knowledge about neutrinos. We develop a hierarchy-agnostic prior and show that the hierarchy cannot be conclusively determined with current data. The determination of the hierarchy is limited by the neutrino mass scale ${\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Sigma}}}_{\ensuremath{\nu}}$ measurement. We obtain a target precision of $\ensuremath{\sigma}({\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Sigma}}}_{\ensuremath{\nu}})=0.014\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{eV}$, necessary for conclusively establishing the normal hierarchy with future data.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.406 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicNeutrino Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207