Differences in Faraday Rotation between Adjacent Extragalactic Radio Sources as a Probe of Cosmic Magnetic Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Faraday rotation measures (RMs) of extragalactic radio sources provide information on line-of-sight magnetic fields, including contributions from our Galaxy, source environments, and the intergalactic medium (IGM). Looking at differences in RMs, ΔRM, between adjacent sources on the sky can help isolate these different components. In this work, we classify adjacent polarized sources in the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) as random or physical pairs. We recompute and correct the uncertainties in the NVSS RM catalog, since these were significantly overestimated. Our sample contains 317 physical and 5111 random pairs, all with Galactic latitudes , polarization fractions ≥2%, and angular separations between 1.′5 and 20′. We find an rms ΔRM of 14.9 ± 0.4 and 4.6 ± 1.1 rad m−2 for the random and physical pairs, respectively. This means that polarized extragalactic sources that are close on the sky but at different redshifts have larger differences in RM than two components of one source. This difference of ∼10 rad m−2 is significant at 5σ and persists in different data subsamples. While there have been other statistical studies of ΔRM between adjacent polarized sources, this is the first unambiguous demonstration that some of this RM difference must be extragalactic, thereby providing a firm upper limit on the RM contribution of the IGM. If the ΔRMs originate local to the sources, then the local magnetic field difference between random sources is a factor of 2 larger than that between components of one source. Alternatively, attributing the difference in ΔRMs to the intervening IGM yields an upper limit on the IGM magnetic field strength of 40 nG.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".