MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3033842230 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.043536

Optimal filters for the moving lens effect

2021· article· en· W3033842230 on OpenAlexafffund
Selim C. Hotinli, Matthew C. Johnson, Joel Meyers

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityPerimeter Institute
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaImperial College LondonOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceGovernment of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundPhysicsEstimatorTransverse planeLens (geology)AnisotropyDipoleComputational physicsCOSMIC cancer databaseOpticsScale (ratio)Field (mathematics)Cosmic background radiationStatistical physicsAstrophysicsMathematicsStatisticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assess the prospects for detecting the moving lens effect using cosmological surveys. The bulk motion of cosmological structure induces a small-scale dipolar temperature anisotropy of the cosmic microwave radiation, centered around halos and oriented along the transverse velocity field. We introduce a set of optimal filters for this signal and forecast that a high significance detection can be made with upcoming experiments. We discuss the prospects for reconstructing the bulk transverse velocity field on large scales using matched filters, finding good agreement with previous work using quadratic estimators.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→