MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215037979 · doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.49

Removing non-physical structure in fitted Faraday rotated signals: non-parametric QU-fitting

2020· article· en· W3215037979 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Pratley, M. Johnston‐Hollitt, B. M. Gaensler

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaraday effectParametric statisticsMean squared errorObservableFaraday cageWavelengthPolarization (electrochemistry)BroadbandPhysicsPolarimetrySquare rootComputer scienceOpticsAlgorithmMagnetic fieldMathematicsScatteringStatisticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Next-generation spectro-polarimetric broadband surveys will probe cosmic magnetic fields in unprecedented detail, using the magneto-optical effect known as Faraday rotation. However, non-parametric methods such as RMCLEAN can introduce non-observable linearly polarized flux into a fitted model at negative wavelengths squared. This leads to Faraday rotation structures that are consistent with the observed data, but would be impossible or difficult to measure. We construct a convex non-parametric $QU$-fitting algorithm to constrain the flux at negative wavelengths squared to be zero. This allows the algorithm to recover structures that are limited in complexity to the observable region in wavelength squared. We verify this approach on simulated broadband data sets where we show that it has a lower root mean square error and that it can change the scientific conclusions for real observations. We advise using this prior in next-generation broadband surveys that aim to uncover complex Faraday depth structures. We provide a public Python implementation of the algorithm at \url{https://github.com/Luke-Pratley/Faraday-Dreams}.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.117 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207