MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224238386 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5cc5

A Comparative Analysis to Deal with Missing Spectral Information Caused by RFI in Cosmological H i 21 cm Observations

2022· article· en· W4224238386 on OpenAlexaff
Arnab Chakraborty, Abhirup Datta, Aishrila Mazumder

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissing dataTheoretical physicsPhysicsAstrophysicsStatistical physicsEconometricsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate the effect of radio-frequency interference (RFI) excision in estimating the cosmological H i 21 cm power spectrum. Flagging of RFI-contaminated channels results in a nonuniform sampling of the instrumental bandpass response. Hence, the Fourier transformation of visibilities from frequency to delay domain contaminates the higher foreground-free delay modes, and separating the spectrally fluctuating H i signal from spectrally smooth foregrounds becomes challenging. We have done a comparative analysis between two algorithms, one-dimensional CLEAN and least-squares spectral analysis (LSSA), which have been used widely to solve this issue in the literature. We test these algorithms using the simulated SKA-1 Low observations in the presence of different RFI flagging scenarios. We find that, in the presence of random flagging of data, both algorithms perform well and can mitigate the foreground leakage issue. But CLEAN fails to restrict the foreground leakage in the presence of periodic and periodic plus broadband RFI flagging and gives an extra bias to the estimated power spectrum. However, LSSA can restrict the foreground leakage for these RFI flagging scenarios and gives an unbiased estimate of the H i 21 cm power spectrum. We have also applied these algorithms to observations with the upgraded GMRT and found that both CLEAN and LSSA give consistent results in the presence of realistic random flagging scenarios for this observed data set. This comparative analysis demonstrates the effectiveness and robustness of these two algorithms in estimating the H i 21 cm power spectrum from data sets affected by different RFI scenarios.

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 score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207