MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022440218 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038308

A hydrodynamical halo model for weak-lensing cross correlations

2020· article· en· W3022440218 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander Mead, Tilman Tröster, Catherine Heymans, Ludovic Van Waerbeke, Ian G. McCarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEuropean Research CouncilMax-Planck-GesellschaftBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungHorizon 2020Canadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsHaloPhysicsAstrophysicsWeak gravitational lensingStatistical physicsRedshiftGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the scale of galactic haloes, the distribution of matter in the cosmos is affected by energetic, non-gravitational processes, the so-called baryonic feedback. A lack of knowledge about the details of how feedback processes redistribute matter is a source of uncertainty for weak-lensing surveys, which accurately probe the clustering of matter in the Universe over a wide range of scales. We developed a cosmology-dependent model for the matter distribution that simultaneously accounts for the clustering of dark matter, gas, and stars. We informed our model by comparing it to power spectra measured from the BAHAMAS suite of hydrodynamical simulations. In addition to considering matter power spectra, we also considered spectra involving the electron-pressure field, which directly relates to the thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (tSZ) effect. We fitted parameters in our model so that it can simultaneously model both matter and pressure data and such that the distribution of gas as inferred from tSZ has an influence on the matter spectrum predicted by our model. We present two variants, one that matches the feedback-induced suppression seen in the matter–matter power spectrum at the percent level and a second that matches the matter–matter data to a slightly lesser degree (≃2%). However, the latter is able to simultaneously model the matter–electron pressure spectrum at the ≃15% level. We envisage our models being used to simultaneously learn about cosmological parameters and the strength of baryonic feedback using a combination of tSZ and lensing auto- and cross-correlation data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207