The matter fluctuation amplitude inferred from the weak lensing power spectrum and correlation function in CFHTLenS data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Based on the cosmic shear data from the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS), Kilbinger et al. obtained a constraint on the amplitude of matter fluctuations of σ8(Ωm/0.27)0.6 = 0.79 ± 0.03 from the two-point correlation function (2PCF). This is ≈3σ lower than the value 0.89 ± 0.01 derived from Planck data on cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies. On the other hand, based on the same CFHTLenS data, but using the power spectrum, and performing a different analysis, Liu et al. obtained the higher value of $\sigma _8(\Omega _\mathrm{m}/0.27)^{0.64}=0.87^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$. We here investigate the origin of this difference, by performing a fair side-by-side comparison of the 2PCF and power spectrum analyses on CFHTLenS data. We find that these two statistics indeed deliver different results, even when applied to the same data in an otherwise identical procedure. We identify excess power in the data on small scales (ℓ > 5000) driving the larger values inferred from the power spectrum. We speculate on the possible origin of this excess small-scale power. More generally, our results highlight the utility of analysing the 2PCF and the power spectrum in tandem, to discover (and to help control) systematic errors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".