MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4327526604 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346414

COSMOGLOBE DR1 results

2023· article· en· W4327526604 on OpenAlexaff
Duncan J. Watts, A. Basyrov, J. R. Eskilt, M. Galloway, E. Gjerløw, L. T. Hergt, D. Herman, H. T. Ihle, S. Paradiso, Faiz Rahman, H. Thommesen, R. Aurlien, M. Bersanelli, L. A. Bianchi, M. Brilenkov, L. P. L. Colombo, H. K. Eriksen, C. Franceschet, U Fuskeland, Brandon S. Hensley, Gabriel A. Hoerning, H. K. Lee, J. G. S. Lunde, A. Marins, S. K. Nerval, Sanjay Kumar Patel, M. Régnier, M. San, Shubhashis Sanyal, Nils-Ole Stutzer, Ajay Kumar Verma, I. K. Wehus, Yifan Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCMB cold spotPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundPlanckAstrophysicsSky

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present C OSMOGLOBE Data Release 1, which implements the first joint analysis of WMAP and Planck LFI time-ordered data, processed within a single Bayesian end-to-end framework. This framework directly builds on a similar analysis of the LFI measurements by the B EYOND P LANCK collaboration, and approaches the cosmic microwave background (CMB) analysis challenge through Gibbs sampling of a global posterior distribution, simultaneously accounting for calibration, mapmaking, and component separation. The computational cost of producing one complete WMAP+LFI Gibbs sample is 812 CPU-h, of which 603 CPU-h are spent on WMAP low-level processing; this demonstrates that end-to-end Bayesian analysis of the WMAP data is computationally feasible. We find that our WMAP posterior mean temperature sky maps and CMB temperature power spectrum are largely consistent with the official WMAP9 results. Perhaps the most notable difference is that our CMB dipole amplitude is 3366.2 ± 1.4 μK, which is 11 μK higher than the WMAP9 estimate and 2.5 σ higher than B EYOND P LANCK ; however, it is in perfect agreement with the HFI-dominated Planck PR4 result. In contrast, our WMAP polarization maps differ more notably from the WMAP9 results, and in general exhibit significantly lower large-scale residuals. We attribute this to a better constrained gain and transmission imbalance model. It is particularly noteworthy that the W -band polarization sky map, which was excluded from the official WMAP cosmological analysis, for the first time appears visually consistent with the V -band sky map. Similarly, the long standing discrepancy between the WMAP K -band and LFI 30 GHz maps is finally resolved, and the difference between the two maps appears consistent with instrumental noise at high Galactic latitudes. Relatedly, these updated maps allowed us for the first time to combine WMAP and LFI polarization data into a single coherent model of large-scale polarized synchrotron emission. Still, we identified a few issues that require additional work, including (1) low-level noise modeling; (2) large-scale temperature residuals at the 1–2 μK level; and (3) a strong degeneracy between the absolute K -band calibration and the dipole of the anomalous microwave emission component. We conclude that leveraging the complementary strengths of WMAP and LFI has allowed the mitigation of both experiments’ weaknesses, and resulted in new state-of-the-art WMAP sky maps. All maps and the associated code are made publicly available through the C OSMOGLOBE web page.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.060

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→