COSMOS: Three‐dimensional Weak Lensing and the Growth of Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a three-dimensional cosmic shear analysis of the Hubble Space Telescope COSMOS survey, the largest ever optical imaging program performed in space. We have measured the shapes of galaxies for the telltale distortions caused by weak gravitational lensing and traced the growth of that signal as a function of redshift. Using both 2D and 3D analyses, we measure cosmological parameters Ωm, the density of matter in the universe, and σ8, the normalization of the matter power spectrum. The introduction of redshift information tightens the constraints by a factor of 3 and also reduces the relative sampling (or "cosmic") variance compared to recent surveys that may be larger but are only two-dimensional. From the 3D analysis, we find that σ8(Ωm/0.3)0.44 = 0.866img1.gif at 68% confidence limits, including both statistical and potential systematic sources of error in the total budget. Indeed, the absolute calibration of shear measurement methods is now the dominant source of uncertainty. Assuming instead a baseline cosmology to fix the geometry of the universe, we have measured the growth of structure on both linear and nonlinear physical scales. Our results thus demonstrate a proof of concept for tomographic analysis techniques that have been proposed for future weak-lensing surveys by a dedicated wide-field telescope in space.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".