MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7042242335

Placing Limits on Light Axions with EHT Polarimetry via Closure Traces

2023· dissertation· en· W7042242335 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhysics and Engineering Research Articles
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxionPolarization (electrochemistry)Faraday effectDimensionless quantityStokes parametersPolarimetrySupermassive black holeTelescope
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Black holes can amplify incoming bosonic waves via rotational superradiance, inducing bound states of ultralight bosons around them. This phenomenon has the potential to confine the parameter spaces of new bosons. Axions, and axion-like particles (ALPs) are candidates beyond-standard-model particles that can form such clouds around supermassive black holes (SMBHs) and impact the polarization signal in a similar fashion to Faraday rotation via axion-photon coupling. Prior research has used data from the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) M87 2017 observations to limit the dimensionless axion-photon coupling to previously unexplored regions. With the novel calibration-insensitive quantities: clo sure traces and conjugate closure trace products, it is possible to constrain the existence of axion clouds while avoiding the most dominant sources of systematic uncertainties, e.g., station gains and polarization leakages. I utilize a simple geometric model for the polarization map of M87*
\nto fit the model parameters with both simulated and real datasets to verify the applicability of this method and reach a comparable level of constraint in the accuracy with which an axion cloud may be excluded in M87. Such approach is feasible
\nwith application to future M87* and Sgr A* observations by EHT and next-generation EHT (ngEHT) and may provide stronger constraints on axions and ALPs.

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 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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.178 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicPhysics and Engineering Research ArticlesFrench-language works237,207