Joint analysis of CMB temperature and lensing-reconstruction power spectra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gravitational lensing provides a significant source of cosmological information in modern cosmic microwave background parameter analyses. It is measured in both the power spectrum and trispectrum of the temperature fluctuations. These observables are often treated as independent, although as they are both determined from the same map, this is impossible. In this paper, we perform a rigorous analysis of the covariance between lensing power spectrum and trispectrum analyses. We find two dominant contributions coming from (i) correlations between the disconnected noise bias in the trispectrum measurement and sample variance in the temperature power spectrum and (ii) sample variance of the lenses themselves. The former is naturally removed when the dominant ${N}^{(0)}$ Gaussian bias in the reconstructed deflection spectrum is dealt with via a partially data-dependent correction, as advocated elsewhere for other reasons. The remaining lens-cosmic-variance contribution is easily modeled but can safely be ignored for a Planck-like experiment, justifying treating the two observable spectra as independent. We also test simple likelihood approximations for the deflection power spectrum, finding that a Gaussian with a parameter-independent covariance performs well.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".