MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400417335 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/016

Limits on non-relativistic matter during Big-bang nucleosynthesis

2024· article· en· W4400417335 on OpenAlexaff
Tsung‐Han Yeh, Keith A. Olive, Brian D. Fields

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundBig Bang nucleosynthesisNeutrinoPlanckNucleosynthesisParticle physicsAstrophysicsCosmic background radiationCosmic rayStandard Model (mathematical formulation)Nuclear physicsSupernovaQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) probes the cosmic mass-energy density at temperatures ∼ 10 MeV to ∼ 100 keV. Here, we consider the effect of a cosmic matter-like species that is non-relativistic and pressureless during BBN. Such a component must decay; doing so during BBN can alter the baryon-to-photon ratio,η, and the effective number of neutrino species. We use light element abundances and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) constraints onη andNνto place constraints on such a matter component. We find that electromagnetic decays heat the photons relative to neutrinos, and thus dilute the effective number of relativistic species toNeff< 3 for the case of three Standard Model neutrino species. Intriguingly, likelihood results based onPlanckCMB data alone findNν= 2.800 ± 0.294, and when combined with standard BBN and the observations of D and4He giveNν= 2.898 ± 0.141. While both results are consistent with the Standard Model, we find that a nonzero abundance of electromagnetically decaying matter gives a better fit to these results. Our best-fit results are for a matter species that decays entirely electromagnetically with a lifetime τX= 0.89 sec and pre-decay density that is a fractionξ= (ρX/ρrad|10 MeV = 0.0026 of the radiation energy density at 10 MeV; similarly good fits are found over a range whereξτX1/2is constant. On the other hand, decaying matter often spoils the BBN+CMB concordance, and we present limits in the (τX,ξ) plane for both electromagnetic and invisible decays. For dark (invisible) decays, standard BBN (i.e.ξ= 0) supplies the best fit. We end with a brief discussion of the impact of future measurements including 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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207