Lensing is low: cosmology, galaxy formation or new physics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, we introduce high signal-to-noise galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements of the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey constant mass (CMASS) sample using 250 deg2 of weak-lensing data from Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey and Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Stripe 82 Survey. We compare this signal with predictions from mock catalogues trained to match observables including the stellar mass function and the projected and two-dimensional clustering of CMASS. We show that the clustering of CMASS, together with standard models of the galaxy-halo connection, robustly predicts a lensing signal that is 20-40 per cent larger than observed. Detailed tests show that our results are robust to a variety of systematic effects. Lowering the value of S8 = σ 8√{Ωm/0.3 compared to Planck Collaboration XIII reconciles the lensing with clustering. However, given the scale of our measurement (r < 10 h-1 Mpc), other effects may also be at play and need to be taken into consideration. We explore the impact of baryon physics, assembly bias, massive neutrinos and modifications to general relativity on ΔΣ and show that several of these effects may be non-negligible given the precision of our measurement. Disentangling cosmological effects from the details of the galaxy-halo connection, the effect of baryons, and massive neutrinos, is the next challenge facing joint lensing and clustering analyses. This is particularly true in the context of large galaxy samples from Baryon Acoustic Oscillation surveys with precise measurements but complex selection functions.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".