Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 29, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
How many latent variables are needed to fit the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature and polarisation power spectra when a neural network is given no cosmological model, and to what extent do they map onto the standard cosmological parameters? We use multi-task learning with variational autoencoders trained on CLASS-generated spectra (TT, TE, EE) over $2\le\ell\le2500$. No cosmological model is built into the network, and the number of latent variables, $L$, is varied over $L=5$, $6$ and $7$. Their fits are compared to the Planck 2018 data using $\hatχ^2$, AIC, BIC and Bayesian evidence. Their correspondence with cosmological parameters is measured with normalised mutual information post-training. The loss weights are set within a single training run by uncertainty weighting, with the weight of the disentanglement term either fixed (semi-automated, SA) or learned (completely automated, CA). The reconstruction loss is split over multipole ranges in three configurations that separate the roles of temperature and polarisation and of the low- and high-$\ell$ ranges. In four of the six combinations of configuration and strategy, the fit improves from $L=5$ to $L=6$ and not beyond, and $L=6$ is the best, or close to the best, in five of the six cases. So, six latent variables are needed, as many as the free parameters of the standard, model-dependent approach. SA gives clearer disentanglement, while CA needs no a priori choice of the disentanglement weight and has the higher evidence at $L=5$ and $6$: the two strategies are points on a trade-off between interpretability and fit to the data. Notably, the latent variables for $τ$ and $A_s$ share almost no information in any model, consistent with large-scale polarisation separating the two, as in standard analyses. A deep-learning approach can thus give a compact, data-driven parametrisation of the CMB spectra.