MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181806994 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.123535

Extracting the signal of cosmic string wakes from 21-cm observations

2021· article· en· W3181806994 on OpenAlexafffund
David Maibach, Robert Brandenberger, Devin Crichton, Alexandre Réfrégier

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
KeywordsPhysicsReionizationCosmic stringString (physics)Cosmic varianceSIGNAL (programming language)RedshiftIntensity mappingAstrophysicsInterferometryGaussianTheoretical physicsAstronomyQuantum mechanicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A cosmic string wake produces a distinct non-Gaussian signal in 21-cm intensity maps at redshifts above that of reionization. While the string signal is (locally) larger in amplitude than the signal of the Gaussian fluctuations of the $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}$ model, they are overwhelmed (even locally in position space) by astrophysical and instrumental foregrounds. Here, we study to what extent the signal can be extracted from noisy interferometric data. The narrowness of the string-induced feature in the redshift direction allows for a subtraction of astrophysical and instrumental foregrounds. Based on the specific geometry of the string signal, we identify a particular three-point statistic that is promising in order to extract the signal, and we find that, having in mind a telescope with specifications similar to that of the MWA instrument, the string signal can be successfully extracted for a value of the string tension of $G\ensuremath{\mu}=3\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}7}$. Prospects for further improvements of the analysis are discussed.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.355 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207