Extending the supernova Hubble diagram to<i>z</i>~ 1.5 with the<i>Euclid</i>space mission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We forecast dark energy constraints that could be obtained from a new large sample of Type Ia supernovae where those at high redshift are acquired with the Euclid space mission. We simulate a three-prong SN survey: a z < 0.35 nearby sample (8000 SNe), a 0.2 < z < 0.95 intermediate sample (8800 SNe), and a 0.75 < z < 1.55 high-z sample (1700 SNe). The nearby and intermediate surveys are assumed to be conducted from the ground, while the high-z is a joint ground- and space-based survey. This latter survey, the “Dark Energy Supernova Infra-Red Experiment” (DESIRE), is designed to fit within 6 months of Euclid observing time, with a dedicated observing programme. We simulate the SN events as they would be observed in rolling-search mode by the various instruments, and derive the quality of expected cosmological constraints. We account for known systematic uncertainties, in particular calibration uncertainties including their contribution through the training of the supernova model used to fit the supernovae light curves. Using conservative assumptions and a 1D geometric Planck prior, we find that the ensemble of surveys would yield competitive constraints: a constant equation of stateparameter can be constrained to σ(w) = 0.022, and a Dark Energy Task Force figure of merit of 203 is found for a two-parameter equation of state. Our simulations thus indicate that Euclid can bring a significant contribution to a purely geometrical cosmology constraint by extending a high-quality SN Ia Hubble diagram to z ~ 1.5. We also present other science topics enabled by the DESIRE Euclid observations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".