MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971902983 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.103519

Probing diffuse gas with fast radio bursts

2019· article· en· W2971902983 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Walters, Yin-Zhe Ma, Jonathan Sievers, Amanda Weltman

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersDepartment of Science and Technology, Republic of South AfricaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsRedshiftCosmic microwave backgroundSupernovaAstrophysicsBaryonCosmic background radiationMarkov chain Monte CarloConstraint (computer-aided design)Monte Carlo methodCOSMIC cancer databaseDark matterMarkov chainStatistical physicsGalaxyQuantum mechanicsStatisticsComputer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dispersion measure---redshift relation of fast radio bursts (FRBs), $\mathrm{DM}(z)$, has been proposed as a potential new probe of the cosmos, complementary to existing techniques. In practice, however, the effectiveness of this approach depends on a number of factors, including (but not limited to) the intrinsic scatter in the data caused by intervening matter inhomogeneities. Here, we simulate a number of catalogues of mock FRB observations, and use Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques to forecast constraints, and assess which parameters will likely be best constrained. In all cases, we find that any potential improvement in cosmological constraints are limited by the current uncertainty on the diffuse gas fraction, ${f}_{\mathrm{d}}(z)$. Instead, we find that the precision of current cosmological constraints allows one to constrain ${f}_{\mathrm{d}}(z)$ and possibly its redshift evolution. Combining Cosmic Microwave Background $+$ Baryon Acoustic Oscillations $+$ Supernovae $+$ ${H}_{0}$ constraints with just 100 FRBs (with redshifts), we find a typical constraint on the mean diffuse gas fraction of a few percent. A detection of this nature would alleviate the ``missing baryon problem,'' and therefore highlights the value of localization and spectroscopic follow-up of future FRB detections.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.410 · 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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207