MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315709151 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stad127

Interferometric H <scp>i</scp> intensity mapping: perturbation theory predictions and foreground removal effects

2023· article· en· W4315709151 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alkistis Pourtsidou

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsPhysicsIntensity mappingSpectral densityAstrophysicsMarkov chain Monte CarloPerturbation theory (quantum mechanics)GalaxyHubble's lawMonte Carlo methodStatistical physicsComputational physicsStatisticsParticle physicsRedshift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We provide perturbation theory predictions for the H i intensity mapping power spectrum multipoles using the Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structure, which should allow us to exploit mildly non-linear scales. Assuming survey specifications typical of proposed interferometric H i intensity mapping experiments like Canadian Hydrogen Observatory and Radio transient Detector and PUMA, and realistic ranges of validity for the perturbation theory modelling, we run mock full shape Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analyses at z = 0.5, and compare with Stage-IV optical galaxy surveys. We include the impact of 21cm foreground removal using simulations-based prescriptions, and quantify the effects on the precision and accuracy of the parameter estimation. We vary 11 parameters in total: three cosmological parameters, seven bias and counter terms parameters, and the H i brightness temperature. Amongst them, the four parameters of interest are: the cold dark matter density, ωc, the Hubble parameter, h, the primordial amplitude of the power spectrum, As, and the linear H i bias, b1. For the best-case scenario, we obtain unbiased constraints on all parameters with $\lt 3{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ errors at $68{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ confidence level. When we include the foreground removal effects, the parameter estimation becomes strongly biased for ωc, h, and b1, while As is less biased (&amp;lt;2σ). We find that scale cuts $k_{\rm min} \ge 0.03 \ h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ are required to return accurate estimates for ωc and h, at the price of a decrease in the precision, while b1 remains strongly biased. We comment on the implications of these results for real data analyses.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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