Cosmological parameters, shear maps and power spectra from CFHTLenS using Bayesian hierarchical inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We apply two Bayesian hierarchical inference schemes to infer shear power spectra, shear maps and cosmological parameters from the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope (CFHTLenS) weak lensing survey – the first application of this method to data. In the first approach, we sample the joint posterior distribution of the shear maps and power spectra by Gibbs sampling, with minimal model assumptions. In the second approach, we sample the joint posterior of the shear maps and cosmological parameters, providing a new, accurate and principled approach to cosmological parameter inference from cosmic shear data. As a first demonstration on data, we perform a two-bin tomographic analysis to constrain cosmological parameters and investigate the possibility of photometric redshift bias in the CFHTLenS data. Under the baseline ΛCDM (Λ cold dark matter) model, we constrain |$S_8 = \sigma _8(\Omega _\mathrm{m}/0.3)^{0.5} = 0.67 ^{\scriptscriptstyle + 0.03 }_{\scriptscriptstyle - 0.03 }$| (68 per cent), consistent with previous CFHTLenS analyses but in tension with Planck. Adding neutrino mass as a free parameter, we are able to constrain ∑mν < 4.6 eV (95 per cent) using CFHTLenS data alone. Including a linear redshift-dependent photo-z bias Δz = p2(z − p1), we find |$p_1=-0.25 ^{\scriptscriptstyle + 0.53 }_{\scriptscriptstyle - 0.60 }$| and |$p_2 = -0.15 ^{\scriptscriptstyle + 0.17 }_{\scriptscriptstyle - 0.15 }$|, and tension with Planck is only alleviated under very conservative prior assumptions. Neither the non-minimal neutrino mass nor photo-z bias models are significantly preferred by the CFHTLenS (two-bin tomography) data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".