The impact of the fiducial cosmology assumption on BAO distance scale measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Standard analysis pipelines for measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) in galaxy surveys make use of a fiducial cosmological model to guide the data compression required to transform from observed redshifts and angles to the measured angular and radial BAO peak positions. In order to remove any dependence on the fiducial cosmology from the results, all models compared to the data should mimic the compression and its dependence on the fiducial model. In practice, approximations are made when testing models: (1) There is assumed to be no residual dependence on the fiducial cosmology after reconstruction, (2) differences in the distance–redshift relationship are assumed to match a linear scaling, and (3) differences in clustering between true and fiducial models are assumed to be removed by the free parameters used to null the non-BAO signal. We test these approximations using the current standard measurement procedure with a set of halo catalogues from the aemulus suite of N-body simulations, which span a range of wCDM cosmological models. We focus on reconstruction of the primordial BAO and locating the BAO. For the range of wCDM cosmologies covered by the aemulus suite, we find no evidence for systematic errors in the measured BAO shift parameters α∥ and α⊥ to $\lt 0.1\%$. However, the measured errors $\sigma _{\alpha _{\parallel }}$ and $\sigma _{\alpha _{\bot }}$ show a notable absolute increase by up to +0.001 and +0.002, respectively, in the case that the fiducial cosmology does not match the truth. These effects on the inferred BAO scale will be important, given the precision of measurements expected from future surveys including DESI, Euclid, and 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 | 0.012 | 0.069 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".