Cosmological Constraints from the Red‐Sequence Cluster Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[abridged] We present a first cosmological analysis of a refined cluster catalog from the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey (RCS). The input cluster sample is derived from 72.07 square degrees of imaging data [...] The catalog contains 956 clusters over 0.35<z<0.95, limited by cluster richness and richness error. The calibration of the survey images has been extensively cross-checked against publicly available Sloan Digital Sky Survey imaging [...] We analyze the cluster sample via a general self-calibration technique including scatter in the mass-richness relation [...]. We fit simultaneously for Omega_M and sigma_8, and four parameters describing the calibration of cluster richness to mass, its evolution with redshift, and scatter in the richness-mass relation. The principal goal of this general analysis is to establish the consistency (or lack thereof) between the fitted parameters (both cosmological and cluster mass observables) and available results on both from independent measures. From an unconstrained analysis, Omega_M and sigma_8 are 0.31+0.11-0.10 and 0.67+0.18-0.13 respectively. An analysis including Gaussian priors on the slope and zeropoint of the mass-richness relation gives very similar results: 0.30+0.12-0.11 and 0.70+0.27-0.15. Both analyses are in good agreement with the current literature. The parameters describing the mass-richness relation in the unconstrained fit are also eminently reasonable and agree with existing follow-up data on both the RCS-1 and other cluster samples. Our results directly demonstrate that future surveys (optical and otherwise), with much larger samples of clusters, can give constraints competitive with other probes of 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".