User’s guide to extracting cosmological information from line-intensity maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Line-intensity mapping (LIM) provides a promising way to probe cosmology, reionization and galaxy evolution. However, its sensitivity to cosmology and astrophysics at the same time is also a nuisance. Here we develop a comprehensive framework for modeling the LIM power spectrum, which includes redshift space distortions and the Alcock-Paczynski effect. We then identify and isolate degeneracies with astrophysics so that they can be marginalized over. We study the gains of using the multipole expansion of the anisotropic power spectrum, providing an accurate analytic expression for their covariance, and find a 10%--75% increase in the precision of the baryon acoustic oscillation scale measurements when including the hexadecapole in the analysis. We discuss different observational strategies when targeting other cosmological parameters, such as the sum of neutrino masses or primordial non-Gaussianity, finding that fewer and wider redshift bins are typically optimal. Overall, our formalism facilitates an optimal extraction of cosmological constraints robust to astrophysics.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.505 | 0.367 |
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".