MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416466508 · doi:10.1103/1wr4-x5dy

Learning theory informed priors for Bayesian inference: A case study with early dark energy

2025· article· en· W4416466508 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael W. Toomey, Mikhail M. Ivanov, Evan McDonough

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHigh Energy PhysicsOffice of ScienceSimons FoundationU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPrior probabilityAxionBayesian inferenceBayesian probabilityInferenceRepresentation (politics)PlanckDark energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cosmological models are often motivated and formulated in the language of particle physics, using quantities such as the axion decay constant, but tested against data using ostensibly physical quantities, such as energy density ratios, assuming uniform priors on the latter. This approach neglects priors on the model from fundamental theory, including from particle physics and string theory, such as the preference for sub-Planckian axion decay constants. We introduce a novel approach to learning theory informed priors for Bayesian inference using normalizing flow (NF), a flexible generative machine learning technique that generates priors on model parameters when analytic expressions are unavailable or difficult to compute. As a test case, we focus on early dark energy (EDE), a model designed to address the Hubble tension. Rather than using uniform priors on the phenomenological EDE parameters ${f}_{\mathrm{EDE}}$ and ${z}_{c}$, we train a NF on EDE cosmologies informed by theory expectations for axion masses and decay constants. Our method recovers known constraints in this representation while being $\ensuremath{\sim}300$, 000 times more efficient in terms of total CPU compute time. Applying our NF to Planck and BOSS data, we obtain the first theory informed constraints on EDE, finding ${f}_{\mathrm{EDE}}\ensuremath{\lesssim}0.02$ at 95% confidence with an ${H}_{0}$ consistent with Planck, but in $\ensuremath{\sim}6\ensuremath{\sigma}$ tension with SH0ES. This yields the strongest constraints on EDE to date, additionally challenging its role in resolving the Hubble tension.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena→French-language works237,207→