Caustics: A Python Package for Accelerated StrongGravitational Lensing Simulations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gravitational lensing is the deflection of light rays due to the gravity of intervening masses.This phenomenon is observed at a variety of 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 and lensed object(s) must be aligned closely on the sky.As the discovery of lens systems has grown to the low thousands, these systems have become pivotal for precision measurements in astrophysics, notably for phenomena including dark matter (e.g.Hezaveh et al., 2016;Vegetti & Vogelsberger, 2014), supernovae (e.g.Rodney et al., 2021), quasars (e.g.Peng et al., 2006), the first stars (e.g.Welch et al., 2022), and the Universe's expansion rate (e.g.K. C. Wong et al., 2020).With future surveys expected to discover hundreds of thousands of lensing systems, the modelling and simulation of such systems must be done at orders of magnitude larger scale than ever before.Here we present caustics, a Python package designed to facilitate machine learning and Bayesian methods to handle the extensive computational demands of modelling 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it