MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376274693 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244958

BEYONDPLANCK

2023· article· en· W4376274693 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Brilenkov, L. T. Hergt, Gabriel A. Hoerning, Alessandro Marins, Tamaki Murokoshi, Fuad Rahman, Nils-Ole Stutzer, Yan Zhou, F. B. Abdalla, K. J. Andersen, R. Aurlien, R. Banerji, A. Basyrov, A. Battista, M. Bersanelli, S. Bertocco, S. Bollanos, L. P. L. Colombo, H. K. Eriksen, J. R. Eskilt, M. K. Foss, C. Franceschet, U. Fuskeland, S. Galeotta, M. Galloway, S. Gerakakis, E. Gjerløw, B. Hensley, D. Herman, D. Hoang, M. Ieronymaki, H. T. Ihle, J. B. Jewell, A. Karakci, E. Keihänen, R. Keskitalo, G. Maggio, M. Maris, S. Paradiso, B. Partridge, M. Reinecke, A.-S. Suur-Uski, T. L. Svalheim, D. Tavagnacco, H. Thommesen, M. Tomasi, Duncan J. Watts, I. K. Wehus, A. Zacchei

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHorizon 2020TekesNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationChina Scholarship CouncilCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNorges ForskningsrådAcademy of FinlandPartnership for Advanced Computing in Europe AISBLKillam TrustsMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyUniversidade de São PauloEuropean CommissionUniversitetet i OsloFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsFrequentist inferenceRealization (probability)Bayesian probabilityPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundStatistical physicsAlgorithmComputer scienceBayesian inferenceStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 B EYOND P LANCK , 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. B EYOND P LANCK represents 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 B EYOND P LANCK posterior 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 B EYOND P LANCK algorithms 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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207