Optical modeling of systematic uncertainties in detector polarization angles for the Atacama Cosmology Telescope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an estimate of the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) detector polarization angle systematic uncertainty from optics perturbation analysis using polarization-sensitive ray tracing in CODE V optical design software. Uncertainties in polarization angle calibration in CMB measurements can limit constraints on cosmic birefringence and other cosmological parameters sensitive to polarization leakage. Our framework estimates the angle calibration systematic uncertainties from possible displacements in lens positions and orientations, and anti-reflection coating (ARC) thicknesses and refractive indices. With millimeter displacements in lens positions and percent-level perturbations in ARC thicknesses and indices from design, we find the total systematic uncertainty for three ACT detector arrays operating between 90 and 220 GHz to be at the 10th of degree scale. Reduced lens position and orientation uncertainties from physical measurements could lead to a reduction in the systematic uncertainty estimated with the framework presented here. This optical modeling may inform polarization angle systematic uncertainties for current and future microwave polarimeters, such as the CCAT Observatory, Simons Observatory, and CMB-S4.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".