MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178216204 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stw108

Combining galaxy and 21-cm surveys

2016· article· en· W2178216204 on OpenAlexaff
J. D. Cohn, Martin White, Tzu‐Ching Chang, G. P. Holder, Nikhil Padmanabhan, Olivier Doré

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsRedshiftGalaxyDark energyRedshift-space distortionsBaryon acoustic oscillationsAstrophysicsCosmic varianceSpectral densityUniverseStructure formationCOSMIC cancer databasePeculiar velocityCosmologyRedshift survey

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acoustic waves travelling through the early Universe imprint a characteristic scale in the clustering of galaxies, QSOs and intergalactic gas. This scale can be used as a standard ruler to map the expansion history of the Universe, a technique known as baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO). BAO offer a high-precision, low-systematics means of constraining our cosmological model. The statistical power of BAO measurements can be improved if the ‘smearing’ of the acoustic feature by non-linear structure formation is undone in a process known as reconstruction. In this paper, we use low-order Lagrangian perturbation theory to study the ability of 21-cm experiments to perform reconstruction and how augmenting these surveys with galaxy redshift surveys at relatively low number densities can improve performance. We find that the critical number density which must be achieved in order to benefit 21-cm surveys is set by the linear theory power spectrum near its peak, and corresponds to densities achievable by upcoming surveys of emission line galaxies such as eBOSS and DESI. As part of this work, we analyse reconstruction within the framework of Lagrangian perturbation theory with local Lagrangian bias, redshift–space distortions, |${\boldsymbol {k}}$|-dependent noise and anisotropic filtering schemes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207