Gravitational Lensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background by large‐scale structure in the late universe is both a source of cosmological information and a potential contaminant of primordial gravity waves. Because lensing imprints growth of structure in the late universe on the CMB, measurements of CMB lensing will constrain parameters to which the CMB would not otherwise be sensitive, such as neutrino mass.In CMB polarization, gravitational lensing is the largest guaranteed source of B‐mode (or curl‐like) polarization. Future CMB polarization experiments with sufficient sensitivity to measure B‐modes on small angular scales (l∼1000) can measure lensing with better sensitivity, and on different scales, than could be achieved by measuring CMB temperature alone. If the instrumental noise is sufficiently small (≲5 μK‐arcmin), the gravitational lensing contribution to the large‐scale B‐mode will be the limiting source of contamination when constraining a stochastic background of gravity waves in the early universe, one of the most exciting prospects for future CMB polarization experiments. High‐sensitivity measurements of small‐scale B‐modes can reduce this contamination through a lens reconstruction technique that separates the lensing and primordial contributions to the B‐mode on large scales.A fundamental design decision for a future CMB polarization experiment such as CMBpol is whether to have coarse angular resolution so that only the large‐scale B‐mode (and the large‐scale E‐mode from reionization) is measured, or high resolution to additionally measure CMB lensing. The purpose of this white paper is to evaluate the science case for CMB lensing in polarization: constraints on cosmological parameters, increased sensitivity to the gravity wave B‐mode via lens reconstruction, expected level of contamination from non‐CMB foregrounds, and required control of beam systematics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.033 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".