A question of separation: disentangling tracer bias and gravitational non-linearity with counts-in-cells statistics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting from a very accurate model for density-in-cells statistics of dark matter based on large deviation theory, a bias model for the tracer density in spheres is formulated. It adopts a mean bias relation based on a quadratic bias model to relate the log-densities of dark matter to those of mass-weighted dark haloes in real and redshift space. The validity of the parametrized bias model is established using a parametrization-independent extraction of the bias function. This average bias model is then combined with the dark matter PDF, neglecting any scatter around it: it nevertheless yields an excellent model for densities-in-cells statistics of mass tracers that is parametrized in terms of the underlying dark matter variance and three bias parameters. The procedure is validated on measurements of both the one- and two-point statistics of subhalo densities in the state-of-the-art Horizon Run 4 simulation showing excellent agreement for measured dark matter variance and bias parameters. Finally, it is demonstrated that this formalism allows for a joint estimation of the non-linear dark matter variance and the bias parameters using solely the statistics of subhaloes. Having verified that galaxy counts in hydrodynamical simulations sampled on a scale of 10 Mpc h−1 closely resemble those of subhaloes, this work provides important steps towards making theoretical predictions for density-in-cells statistics applicable to upcoming galaxy surveys like Euclid or WFIRST.
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 | 0.008 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".