MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313466877 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/03/018

Probing Lorentz-violating electrodynamics with CMB polarization

2023· article· en· W4313466877 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Luca Caloni, S. Giardiello, M Lembo, M. Gerbino, Giulia Gubitosi, M. Lattanzi, L. Pagano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean CommissionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundPhysicsLorentz transformationObservableParticle physicsAnisotropyPolarization (electrochemistry)AstrophysicsQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We perform a comprehensive study of the signatures of Lorentz violation in electrodynamics on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies. In the framework of the minimal Standard Model Extension (SME), we consider effects generated by renormalizable operators, both CPT-odd and CPT-even. These operators are responsible for sourcing, respectively, cosmic birefringence and circular polarization. We propagate jointly the effects of all the relevant Lorentz-violating parameters to CMB observables and provide constraints with the most recent CMB datasets. We bound the CPT-even coefficient to k F,E+B < 2.31 × 10 -31 at 95% CL. This improves previous CMB bounds by one order of magnitude. The limits we obtain on the CPT-odd coefficients, i.e. | k (3) ( V )00 | < 1.54 × 10 -44 GeV and | k AF | < 0.74 × 10 -44 GeV at 95% CL, are respectively one and two orders of magnitude stronger than previous CMB-based limits, superseding also bounds from non-CMB searches. This analysis provides the strongest constraints to date on CPT-violating coefficients in the minimal SME from CMB searches.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207