MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283721362 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1749

A Bayesian approach to high fidelity interferometric calibration − II: demonstration with simulated data

2022· article· en· W4283721362 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Sims, Jonathan C. Pober, Jonathan Sievers

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersBrown UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsAmplitudeCalibrationA priori and a posterioriSpurious relationshipSkyDegenerate energy levelsPrior probabilityBayesian probabilityComputational physicsAlgorithmOpticsAstrophysicsStatisticsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In a companion paper, we presented bayescal, a mathematical formalism for mitigating sky-model incompleteness in interferometric calibration. In this paper, we demonstrate the use of bayescal to calibrate the degenerate gain parameters of full-Stokes simulated observations with a HERA-like hexagonal close-packed redundant array, for three assumed levels of completeness of the a priori known component of the calibration sky model. We compare the bayescal calibration solutions to those recovered by calibrating the degenerate gain parameters with only the a priori known component of the calibration sky model both with and without imposing physically motivated priors on the gain amplitude solutions and for two choices of baseline length range over which to calibrate. We find that bayescal provides calibration solutions with up to 4 orders of magnitude lower power in spurious gain amplitude fluctuations than the calibration solutions derived for the same data set with the alternate approaches, and between ∼107 and ∼1010 times smaller than in the mean degenerate gain amplitude, on the full range of spectral scales accessible in the data. Additionally, we find that in the scenarios modelled only bayescal has sufficiently high fidelity calibration solutions for unbiased recovery of the 21-cm power spectrum on large spectral scales (k∥ ≲ 0.15 hMpc−1). In all other cases, in the completeness regimes studied, those scales are contaminated.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology→French-language works237,207→