MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295930261 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2600

A Bayesian calibration framework for EDGES

2022· article· en· W4295930261 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Murray, Judd D. Bowman, Peter Sims, Nivedita Mahesh, A. E. E. Rogers, Raúl A. Monsalve, Titu Samson, Akshatha K Vydula

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsCalibrationSkyCOSMIC cancer databaseBayesian probabilitySIGNAL (programming language)Antenna (radio)Remote sensingAstrophysicsAstronomyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We develop a Bayesian model that jointly constrains receiver calibration, foregrounds, and cosmic 21 cm signal for the EDGES global 21 cm experiment. This model simultaneously describes calibration data taken in the lab along with sky-data taken with the EDGES low-band antenna. We apply our model to the same data (both sky and calibration) used to report evidence for the first star formation in 2018. We find that receiver calibration does not contribute a significant uncertainty to the inferred cosmic signal ($\lt 1{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$), though our joint model is able to more robustly estimate the cosmic signal for foreground models that are otherwise too inflexible to describe the sky data. We identify the presence of a significant systematic in the calibration data, which is largely avoided in our analysis, but must be examined more closely in future work. Our likelihood provides a foundation for future analyses in which other instrumental systematics, such as beam corrections and reflection parameters, may be added in a modular manner.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207