A Comparison of Estimators for the Two-Point Correlation Function
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine of the most important estimators known for the two-point correlation function are compared using a predetermined, rigorous criterion. The indicators were extracted from over 500 subsamples of the Virgo Hubble volume simulation cluster catalog. The "real" correlation function was determined from the full survey in a 3000 h(-1) Mpc periodic cube. The estimators were ranked by the cumulative probability of returning a value within a certain tolerance of the real correlation function. This criterion takes into account bias and variance, and it is independent of the possibly non-Gaussian nature of the error statistics. As a result, for astrophysical applications, a clear recommendation has emerged: the Landy & Szalay estimator, in its original or grid version (Szapudi & Szalay), is preferred in comparison with the other indicators examined, with a performance almost indistinguishable from the Hamilton estimator.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it