MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using the Marked Power Spectrum to Detect the Signature of Neutrinos in Large-Scale Structure

2021· article· en· W3119251236 on OpenAlexafffund
Elena Massara, Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, Shirley Ho, Neal Dalal, David N. Spergel

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersGovernment of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaOntario Ministry of Economic Development and InnovationSimons FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsNeutrinoPhysicsSpectral densityMatter power spectrumSigmaParticle physicsDark matterCosmic microwave backgroundSignature (topology)Constraint (computer-aided design)Spectrum (functional analysis)AstrophysicsStatisticsCosmologyDark energyQuantum mechanicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cosmological neutrinos have their greatest influence in voids: These are the regions with the highest neutrino to dark matter density ratios. The marked power spectrum can be used to emphasize low-density regions over high-density regions and, therefore, is potentially much more sensitive than the power spectrum to the effects of neutrino masses. Using 22 000 N-body simulations from the Quijote suite, we quantify the information content in the marked power spectrum of the matter field and show that it outperforms the standard power spectrum by setting constraints improved by a factor larger than 2 on all cosmological parameters. The combination of marked and standard power spectra allows us to place a 4.3σ constraint on the minimum sum of the neutrino masses with a volume equal to 1 (Gpc h^{-1})^{3} and without cosmic microwave background priors. Combinations of different marked power spectra yield a 6σ constraint within the same conditions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations109
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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