Galaxy–galaxy lensing estimators and their covariance properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the covariance properties of real space correlation function estimators – primarily galaxy–shear correlations, or galaxy–galaxy lensing – using SDSS data for both shear catalogues and lenses (specifically the BOSS LOWZ sample). Using mock catalogues of lenses and sources, we disentangle the various contributions to the covariance matrix and compare them with a simple analytical model. We show that not subtracting the lensing measurement around random points from the measurement around the lens sample is equivalent to performing the measurement using the lens density field instead of the lens overdensity field. While the measurement using the lens density field is unbiased (in the absence of systematics), its error is significantly larger due to an additional term in the covariance. Therefore, this subtraction should be performed regardless of its beneficial effects on systematics. Comparing the error estimates from data and mocks for estimators that involve the overdensity, we find that the errors are dominated by the shape noise and lens clustering, which empirically estimated covariances (jackknife and standard deviation across mocks) that are consistent with theoretical estimates, and that both the connected parts of the four-point function and the supersample covariance can be neglected for the current levels of noise. While the trade-off between different terms in the covariance depends on the survey configuration (area, source number density), the diagnostics that we use in this work should be useful for future works to test their empirically determined covariances.
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 | 0.016 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".