MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cosmic Birefringence from the<i>Planck</i>Data Release 4

2022· article· en· W4214521858 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDepartamento de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Gobierno de AragónAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOffice of ScienceNational Energy Research Scientific Computing CenterUniversidad de CantabriaJet Propulsion LaboratoryMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyFederación Española de Enfermedades RarasDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of EnergyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyMax-Planck-Institut für AstrophysikEuropean Space AgencyMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundPlanckBirefringenceCosmic rayCOSMIC cancer databaseSkyCosmic background radiation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We search for the signature of parity-violating physics in the cosmic microwave background, called cosmic birefringence, using the Planck data release 4. We initially find a birefringence angle of $\ensuremath{\beta}=0.30\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.11\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}$ (68% C.L.) for nearly full-sky data. The values of $\ensuremath{\beta}$ decrease as we enlarge the Galactic mask, which can be interpreted as the effect of polarized foreground emission. Two independent ways to model this effect are used to mitigate the systematic impact on $\ensuremath{\beta}$ for different sky fractions. We choose not to assign cosmological significance to the measured value of $\ensuremath{\beta}$ until we improve our knowledge of the foreground polarization.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.292
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 designNot applicable
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

Citations144
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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