MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019022638 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.123015

Dark energy from large-scale structure lensing information

2010· article· en· W2019022638 on OpenAlexaff
Tingting Lu, Ue‐Li Pen, O. Doré

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDark energyWeak gravitational lensingRedshiftDark matterGravitational lensAstrophysicsEstimatorSpectral densityStrong gravitational lensingGaussianCold dark matterCosmologyQuantum mechanicsStatisticsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wide area large-scale structure (LSS) surveys are planning to map a substantial fraction of the visible Universe to quantify dark energy through baryon acoustic oscillations. At increasing redshift, for example, that probed by proposed 21-cm intensity mapping surveys, gravitational lensing potentially limits the fidelity (Hui et al., 2007) because it distorts the apparent matter distribution. In this paper we show that these distortions can be reconstructed, and actually used to map the distribution of intervening dark matter. The lensing information for sources at $z=1\ensuremath{-}3$ allows accurate reconstruction of the gravitational potential on large scales, $l\ensuremath{\lesssim}100$, which is well matched for integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect measurements of dark energy and its sound speed, and a strong constraint for modified gravity models of dark energy. We built an optimal quadratic lensing estimator for non-Gaussian sources, which is necessary for LSS. The phenomenon of ``information saturation'' (Rimes Hamilton, 2005) saturates reconstruction at mildly nonlinear scales, where the linear source power spectrum ${\ensuremath{\Delta}}^{2}\ensuremath{\sim}0.2--0.5$, depending on power spectrum slope. Naive Gaussian estimators with nonlinear cutoff can be tuned to reproduce the optimal non-Gaussian errors within a factor of 2. We compute the effective number densities of independent lensing sources for LSS lensing, and find that they increase rapidly with redshifts. For LSS/21-cm sources at $z\ensuremath{\sim}2--4$, the lensing reconstruction is limited by cosmic variance at $l\ensuremath{\lesssim}100$.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207