Weak-lensing Mass Calibration of ACTPol Sunyaev–Zel’dovich Clusters with the Hyper Suprime-Cam Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present weak-lensing measurements using the first-year data from the Hyper Suprime-Cam Strategic Survey Program on the Subaru telescope for eight galaxy clusters selected through their thermal Sunyaev–Zel’dovich (SZ) signal measured at 148 GHz with the Atacama Cosmology Telescope Polarimeter experiment. The overlap between the two surveys in this work is 33.8 square degrees, before masking bright stars. The signal-to-noise ratio of individual cluster lensing measurements ranges from 2.2 to 8.7, with a total of 11.1 for the stacked cluster weak-lensing signal. We fit for an average weak-lensing mass distribution using three different profiles, a Navarro–Frenk–White profile, a dark-matter-only emulated profile, and a full cosmological hydrodynamic emulated profile. We interpret the differences among the masses inferred by these models as a systematic error of 10%, which is currently smaller than the statistical error. We obtain the ratio of the SZ-estimated mass to the lensing-estimated mass (the so-called hydrostatic mass bias 1− b ) of , which is comparable to previous SZ-selected clusters from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope and from the Planck Satellite. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for cosmological parameters inferred from cluster abundances compared to cosmic microwave background primary anisotropy measurements.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".