BEYONDPLANCK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
End-to-end simulations play a key role in the analysis of any high-sensitivity cosmic microwave background (CMB) experiment, providing high-fidelity systematic error propagation capabilities that are unmatched by any other means. In this paper, we address an important issue regarding such simulations, namely, how to define the inputs in terms of sky model and instrument parameters. These may either be taken as a constrained realization derived from the data or as a random realization independent from the data. We refer to these as posterior and prior simulations, respectively. We show that the two options lead to significantly different correlation structures, as prior simulations (contrary to posterior simulations) effectively include cosmic variance, but they exclude realization-specific correlations from non-linear degeneracies. Consequently, they quantify fundamentally different types of uncertainties. We argue that as a result, they also have different and complementary scientific uses, even if this dichotomy is not absolute. In particular, posterior simulations are in general more convenient for parameter estimation studies, while prior simulations are generally more convenient for model testing. Before BEYONDPLANCK, most pipelines used a mix of constrained and random inputs and applied the same hybrid simulations for all applications, even though the statistical justification for this is not always evident. BEYONDPLANCKrepresents the first end-to-end CMB simulation framework that is able to generate both types of simulations and these new capabilities have brought this topic to the forefront. The BEYONDPLANCKposterior simulations and their uses are described extensively in a suite of companion papers. In this work, we consider one important applications of the corresponding prior simulations, namely, code validation. Specifically, we generated a set of one-year LFI 30 GHz prior simulations with known inputs and we used these to validate the core low-level BEYONDPLANCKalgorithms dealing with gain estimation, correlated noise estimation, and mapmaking.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.532 | 0.303 |
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".