Scientific Synergy between LSST and Euclid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Euclid and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) are poised to dramatically change the astronomy landscape early in the next decade. The combination of high-cadence, deep, wide-field optical photometry from LSST with high-resolution, wide-field optical photometry, and near-infrared photometry and spectroscopy from Euclid will be powerful for addressing a wide range of astrophysical questions. We explore Euclid /LSST synergy, ignoring the political issues associated with data access to focus on the scientific, technical, and financial benefits of coordination. We focus primarily on dark energy cosmology, but also discuss galaxy evolution, transient objects, solar system science, and galaxy cluster studies. We concentrate on synergies that require coordination in cadence or survey overlap, or would benefit from pixel-level co-processing that is beyond the scope of what is currently planned, rather than scientific programs that could be accomplished only at the catalog level without coordination in data processing or survey strategies. We provide two quantitative examples of scientific synergies: the decrease in photo- z errors (benefiting many science cases) when high-resolution Euclid data are used for LSST photo- z determination, and the resulting increase in weak-lensing signal-to-noise ratio from smaller photo- z errors. We briefly discuss other areas of coordination, including high-performance computing resources and calibration data. Finally, we address concerns about the loss of independence and potential cross-checks between the two missions and the potential consequences of not collaborating.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".