MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988002195 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1316

Non-Gaussian Minkowski functionals and extrema counts in redshift space

2013· article· en· W1988002195 on OpenAlexaff
S. Codis, Christophe Pichon, D. Pogosyan, F. Bernardeau, Takahiko Matsubara

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsMinkowski spaceRedshiftCosmologyGaussianCosmic varianceCOSMIC cancer databaseIsotropyMaxima and minimaStatistical physicsAstrophysicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of upcoming large-scale structure surveys such as Euclid, it is of prime importance to quantify the effect of peculiar velocities on geometric probes. Hence the formalism to compute in redshift space the geometrical and topological one-point statistics of mildly non-Gaussian 2D and 3D cosmic fields is developed. Leveraging the partial isotropy of the target statistics, the Gram-Charlier expansion of the joint probability distribution of the field and its derivatives is reformulated in terms of the corresponding anisotropic variables. In particular, the cosmic non-linear evolution of the Minkowski functionals, together with the statistics of extrema are investigated in turn for 3D catalogues and 2D slabs. The amplitude of the non-Gaussian redshift distortion correction is estimated for these geometric probes. In 3D, gravitational perturbation theory is implemented in redshift space to predict the cosmic evolution of all relevant Gram-Charlier coefficients. Applications to the estimation of the cosmic parameters sigma(z) and beta=f/b1 from upcoming surveys is discussed. Such statistics are of interest for anisotropic fields beyond cosmology.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations66
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207