MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401331883 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.043503

Scintillated microlensing: Measuring cosmic distances with fast radio bursts

2024· article· en· W4401331883 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Tsai, Dylan L. Jow, Daniel Baker, Ue‐Li Pen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsGravitational microlensingCOSMIC cancer databasePhysicsAstronomyCosmic rayAstrophysicsStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a novel means of directly measuring cosmological distances using scintillated microlensing of fast radio bursts (FRBs). In standard strong lensing measurements of cosmic expansion, the main source of systematic uncertainty lies in modeling the mass profile of galactic halos. Using extra-galactic stellar microlensing to measure the Hubble constant avoids this systematic uncertainty as the lens potential of microlenses depends only on a single parameter: the mass of the lens. FRBs, which may achieve nanosecond precision on lensing time delays, are well suited to precision measurements of stellar microlensing, for which the time delays are on the order of milliseconds. However, typical angular separations between the microlensed images on the order of microarcseconds make the individual images impossible to spatially resolve with ground-based telescopes. We propose leveraging scintillation in the interstellar medium (ISM) to resolve the microlensed images, effectively turning the ISM into an astrophysical-scale interferometer. Using this technique, we estimate a 6% uncertainty on ${H}_{0}$ from a single observed scintillated microlensing event, with a subpercent uncertainty on ${H}_{0}$ achievable with only 30 such events. With an optical depth for stellar microlensing of ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}3}$, this may be achievable in the near future with upcoming FRB telescopes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→