MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2000045411 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2312

The SDSS-III Baryonic Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: constraints on the integrated Sachs–Wolfe effect

2013· article· en· W2000045411 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C. Hernández–Monteagudo, Ashley J. Ross, Antonio J. Cuesta, R. Génova-Santos, Jun‐Qing Xia, Francisco Prada, Graziano Rossi, Mark C. Neyrinck, Matteo Viel, J. A. Rubiño-Martín, Claudia G. Scóccola, Gong‐Bo Zhao, Donald P. Schneider, Joel R. Brownstein, D. Thomas, J. Brinkmann

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryRecruitment Program of Global ExpertsMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadYork UniversityScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCarnegie Mellon UniversityOffice of SciencePrinceton UniversityAlfred P. Sloan FoundationUniversity of WashingtonJohns Hopkins UniversityCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityInstitute of High Energy PhysicsHarvard UniversityOhio State UniversityNew Mexico State UniversityUniversity of PortsmouthYale UniversityVanderbilt UniversityNational Science FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationBrookhaven National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMultipole expansionGalaxySpectral densitySkyContext (archaeology)Extinction (optical mineralogy)BaryonAstronomyStatisticsQuantum mechanicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of the study of the integrated Sachs–Wolfe (ISW) effect, we construct a template of the projected density distribution up to redshift z ≃ 0.7 by using the luminous galaxies (LGs) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Data Release 8 (DR8). We use a photometric redshift catalogue trained with more than a hundred thousand galaxies from the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) in the SDSS DR8 imaging area covering nearly one-quarter of the sky. We consider two different LG samples whose selection matches that of SDSS-III/BOSS: the low-redshift sample (LOWZ, z ∈ [0.15, 0.5]) and the constant mass sample (CMASS, z ∈ [0.4, 0.7]). When building the galaxy angular density templates we use the information from star density, survey footprint, seeing conditions, sky emission, dust extinction and airmass to explore the impact of these artefacts on each of the two LG samples. In agreement with previous studies, we find that the CMASS sample is particularly sensitive to Galactic stars, which dominate the contribution to the auto-angular power spectrum below ℓ = 7. Other potential systematics affect mostly the very low multipole range (ℓ ∈ [2, 7]), but leave fluctuations on smaller scales practically unchanged. The resulting angular power spectra in the multipole range ℓ ∈ [2, 100] for the LOWZ, CMASS and LOWZ+CMASS samples are compatible with linear Λ cold dark matter (ΛCDM) expectations and constant bias values of b = 1.98 ± 0.11, 2.08 ± 0.14 and 1.88 ± 0.11, respectively, with no traces of non-Gaussianity signatures, i.e. |$f_{\rm NL}^{\rm local}=59\pm 75$| at 95 per cent confidence level for the full LOWZ+CMASS sample in the multipole range ℓ ∈ [4, 100]. After cross-correlating Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe 9-year data with the LOWZ+CMASS LG projected density field, the ISW signal is detected at the level of 1.62–1.69σ. While this result is in close agreement with theoretical expectations and predictions from realistic Monte Carlo simulations in the concordance ΛCDM model, it cannot rule out by itself an Einstein–de Sitter scenario, and has a moderately low signal compared to previous studies conducted on subsets of this LG sample. We discuss possible reasons for this apparent discrepancy, and point to uncertainties in the galaxy survey systematics as most likely sources of confusion.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→