MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400025368 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.15542

Caustics: A Python Package for Accelerated Strong Gravitational Lensing Simulations

2024· preprint· en· W4400025368 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Connor Stone, Alexandre Adam, Adam Coogan, M. J. Yantovski-Barth, Andreas Filipp, Landung Setiawan, Cordero Core, Ronan Legin, Charles R. Wilson, Gabriel Missael Barco, Yashar Hezaveh, Laurence Perreault-Levasseur

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Washington
KeywordsPython (programming language)Gravitational lensGravitationPhysicsStrong gravitational lensingWeak gravitational lensingComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)AstronomyProgramming languageGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gravitational lensing is the deflection of light rays due to the gravity of intervening masses. This phenomenon is observed in a variety of scales and configurations, involving any non-uniform mass such as planets, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and even the large scale structure of the universe. Strong lensing occurs when the distortions are significant and multiple images of the background source are observed. The lens objects must align on the sky of order ~1 arcsecond for galaxy-galaxy lensing, or 10's of arcseonds for cluster-galaxy lensing. As the discovery of lens systems has grown to the low thousands, these systems have become pivotal for precision measurements and addressing critical questions in astrophysics. Notably, they facilitate the measurement of the Universe's expansion rate, dark matter, supernovae, quasars, and the first stars among other topics. With future surveys expected to discover hundreds of thousands of lensing systems, the modelling and simulation of such systems must occur at orders of magnitude larger scale then ever before. Here we present `caustics`, a Python package designed to handle the extensive computational demands of modeling such a vast number of lensing systems.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.011

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→