MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401923537 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/044

No evidence for parity violation in BOSS

2024· article· en· W4401923537 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicChemistry and Stereochemistry Studies
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsBossParity (physics)Particle physicsTheoretical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent studies have found evidence for parity violation in the BOSS spectroscopic galaxy survey, with statistical significance as high as 7 σ . These analyses assess the significance of the parity-odd four-point correlation function (4PCF) with a statistic called X 2 . This statistic is biased if the parity-even eight-point correlation function (8PCF) of the data differs from the mock catalogs. We construct new statistics X 2 × , X 2 null that separate the parity violation signal from the 8PCF bias term, allowing them to be jointly constrained. Applying these statistics to BOSS, we find that the parity violation signal ranges from 0 to 2.5 σ depending on analysis choices, whereas the 8PCF bias term is ~ 6 σ . We conclude that there is no compelling evidence for parity violation in BOSS. Our new statistics can be used to search for parity violation in future surveys, such as DESI, without 8PCF biases.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.281 · 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