Planck PR4 (NPIPE) map-space cosmic birefringence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cosmic birefringence is an effect where the plane of polarisation of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is rotated by an angle β through coupling to a hypothetical parity-violating field. We analyse the Planck Public Release 4 (PR4 or NPIPE) data using a map-space analysis method and find β= 0.46° ± 0.04°(stat.) ± 0.28°(syst.) for SEVEM CMB maps and β = 0.48° ± 0.04°(stat.) ± 0.28°(syst.) for Commander CMB maps. These values are slightly higher than previously published results, which may be explained by the fact that we have not attempted to remove any potential bias from miscalibration of the Planck polarimeters. The uncertainty in this miscalibration dominates the systematic uncertainty, which also means that our results are consistent with no parity violation. An advantage of the map-space analysis is that it is easy to investigate any variations on the sky, for example caused by foreground contamination. Our results for isotropic birefringence are fairly robust against different spatial data cuts, but there may be hints of a foreground systematic (north versus south hemispheres) or uncontrolled miscalibration effect (T peaks versus E peaks) that should be followed up in future studies. We additionally find no evidence of a cosmic birefringence dipole (anisotropic birefringence).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.011 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".