MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200494635 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac02bb

Optimal Cosmic Microwave Background Lensing Reconstruction and Parameter Estimation with SPTpol Data

2021· article· en· W4200494635 on OpenAlexaff
M. Millea, C. Daley, T.-L. Chou, Ethan Anderes, P. A. R. Ade, A. J. Anderson, Jason E. Austermann, J. S. Avva, James A. Beall, A. N. Bender, B. A. Benson, F. Bianchini, L. E. Bleem, J. E. Carlstrom, C. L. Chang, P. Chaubal, H. C. Chiang, R. Citron, C. Corbett Moran, T. M. Crawford, A. T. Crites, T. de Haan, M. Dobbs, W. Everett, Jason Gallicchio, E. M. George, N. Goeckner-Wald, S. Guns, N. Gupta, N. W. Halverson, J. W. Henning, G. C. Hilton, G. P. Holder, W. L. Holzapfel, J. D. Hrubes, N. Huang, Johannes Hubmayr, K. D. Irwin, L. Knox, A. T. Lee, D. Li, A. E. Lowitz, J. J. McMahon, S. S. Meyer, L. M. Mocanu, J. Montgomery, T. Natoli, J. P. Nibarger, G. I. Noble, V. Novosad, Y. Omori, S. Padin, S. Patil, C. Pryke, C. L. Reichardt, J. E. Ruhl, B. R. Saliwanchik, K. K. Schaffer, C. Sievers, G. Smecher, A. A. Stark, B. Thorne, C. Tucker, Todd Veach, J. D. Vieira, G. Wang, N. Whitehorn, W. L. K. Wu, V. Yefremenko

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsThree-Speed Logic (Canada)Canadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchMcGill University
FundersOffice of ScienceArgonne National LaboratoryNational Energy Research Scientific Computing CenterHigh Energy PhysicsGordon and Betty Moore FoundationU.S. Department of EnergyUniversity of ChicagoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundPhysicsAmplitudeAlgorithmAstrophysicsOpticsAnisotropyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We perform the first simultaneous Bayesian parameter inference and optimal reconstruction of the gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), using 100 deg2 of polarization observations from the SPTpol receiver on the South Pole Telescope. These data reach noise levels as low as 5.8 μK arcmin in polarization, which are low enough that the typically used quadratic estimator (QE) technique for analyzing CMB lensing is significantly suboptimal. Conversely, the Bayesian procedure extracts all lensing information from the data and is optimal at any noise level. We infer the amplitude of the gravitational lensing potential to be A ϕ = 0.949 ± 0.122 using the Bayesian pipeline, consistent with our QE pipeline result, but with 17% smaller error bars. The Bayesian analysis also provides a simple way to account for systematic uncertainties, performing a similar job as frequentist “bias hardening” or linear bias correction, and reducing the systematic uncertainty on A ϕ due to polarization calibration from almost half of the statistical error to effectively zero. Finally, we jointly constrain A ϕ along with A L, the amplitude of lensing-like effects on the CMB power spectra, demonstrating that the Bayesian method can be used to easily infer parameters both from an optimal lensing reconstruction and from the delensed CMB, while exactly accounting for the correlation between the two. These results demonstrate the feasibility of the Bayesian approach on real data, and pave the way for future analysis of deep CMB polarization measurements with SPT-3G, Simons Observatory, and CMB-S4, where improvements relative to the QE can reach 1.5 times tighter constraints on A ϕ and seven times lower effective lensing reconstruction noise.

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)0.012
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations54
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207