MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406095277 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.023503

Impact and mitigation of polarized extragalactic foregrounds on Bayesian cosmic microwave background lensing

2025· article· en· W4406095277 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Frank J. Qu, M. Millea, Emmanuel Schaan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaH2020 European Research CouncilOffice of ScienceUniversity of TorontoU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionNational Energy Research Scientific Computing CenterLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaSLAC National Accelerator LaboratoryOntario Research Foundation
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundPhysicsEstimatorWeak gravitational lensingAstrophysicsPolarization (electrochemistry)OpticsAnisotropyStatisticsMathematicsGalaxyRedshift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Future low-noise cosmic microwave background (CMB) lensing measurements from e.g., CMB-S4 will be polarization dominated, rather than temperature dominated. In this new regime, statistically optimal lensing reconstructions outperform the standard quadratic estimator, but their sensitivity to extragalactic polarized foregrounds has not been quantified. Using realistic simulations of polarized radio and infrared point sources, we show for the first time that optimal Bayesian lensing from a CMB-S4-like experiment is insensitive to the expected level of polarized extragalactic foregrounds after masking, as long as an accurate foreground power spectrum is included in the analysis. For more futuristic experiments where these foregrounds could cause a detectable bias, we propose a new method to jointly fit for lensing and the Poisson foregrounds, generalizing the bias hardening from the standard quadratic estimator to Bayesian lensing.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207