Disentangling magnification in combined shear-clustering analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We investigate the sensitivity to the effects of lensing magnification on large-scale structure analyses combining photometric cosmic shear and galaxy clustering data (i.e. the now commonly called ‘3 × 2-point’ analysis). Using a Fisher matrix bias formalism, we disentangle the contribution to the bias on cosmological parameters caused by ignoring the effects of magnification in a theory fit from individual elements in the data vector, for Stage-III and Stage-IV surveys. We show that the removal of elements of the data vectors that are dominated by magnification does not guarantee a reduction in the cosmological bias due to the magnification signal, but can instead increase the sensitivity to magnification. We find that the most sensitive elements of the data vector come from the shear-clustering cross-correlations, particularly between the highest redshift shear bin and any lower redshift lens sample, and that the parameters ΩM, $S_8=\sigma _8\sqrt{\Omega _\mathrm{ M}/0.3}$, and w0 show the most significant biases for both survey models. Our forecasts predict that current analyses are not significantly biased by magnification, but this bias will become highly significant with the continued increase of statistical power in the near future. We therefore conclude that future surveys should measure and model the magnification as part of their flagship ‘3 × 2-point’ analysis.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".