The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: probing the epoch of radiation domination using large-scale structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We place the most robust constraint to date on the scale of the turnover in the cosmological matter power spectrum using data from the WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey. We find this feature to lie at a scale of k0 = 0.0160+ 0.0035− 0.0041 (h Mpc−1) (68 per cent confidence) for an effective redshift of zeff = 0.62 and obtain from this the first ever turnover-derived distance and cosmology constraints: a measure of the cosmic distance–redshift relation in units of the horizon scale at the redshift of radiation–matter equality (rH) of DV(zeff = 0.62)/rH = 18.3+ 6.3− 3.3 and, assuming a prior on the number of extra relativistic degrees of freedom Neff = 3, constraints on the cosmological matter density parameter ΩM h2 = 0.136+ 0.026− 0.052 and on the redshift of matter–radiation equality zeq = 3274+ 631− 1260. We stress that these results are obtained within the theoretical framework of Gaussian primordial fluctuations and linear large-scale bias. With this caveat, all results are in excellent agreement with the predictions of standard ΛCDM models. Our constraints on the logarithmic slope of the power spectrum on scales larger than the turnover are bounded in the lower limit with values only as low as −1 allowed, with the prediction of P(k) ∝ k from standard ΛCDM models easily accommodated by our results. Finally, we generate forecasts to estimate the achievable precision of future surveys at constraining k0, ΩM h2, zeq and Neff. We find that the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey should substantially improve upon the WiggleZ turnover constraint, reaching a precision on k0 of ±9 per cent (68 per cent confidence), translating to precisions on ΩM h2 and zeq of ±10 per cent (assuming a prior Neff = 3) and on Neff of + 78− 56 per cent (assuming a prior ΩM h2 = 0.135). This represents sufficient precision to sharpen the constraints on Neff from WMAP, particularly in its upper limit. For Euclid, we find corresponding attainable precisions on (k0, ΩM h2, Neff) of (3, 4, + 17− 21) per cent. This represents a precision approaching our forecasts for the Planck Surveyor.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".