What does the marked power spectrum measure? Insights from perturbation theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The marked power spectrum is capable of placing far tighter constraints on cosmological parameters (particularly the neutrino mass) than the conventional power spectrum. What new information does it contain beyond conventional statistics? Through the development of a perturbative model, we find that the mark induces a significant coupling between non-Gaussianities, which are usually found on small scales, and large scales, leading to the additional information content. The model is derived in the context of one-loop perturbation theory and validated by comparison to $N$-body simulations across a variety of mark parameters. At moderate redshifts, including for massive neutrino cosmologies, the theory is in good agreement with the simulations. The importance of nonlinear gravitational effects on the large-scale spectra complicates the modeling as there is no well-defined convergence radius of the theory at low $z$. Extension to higher perturbative order and biased tracers is possible via a similar approach, and a simple model of the latter is shown to yield promising results. The theory becomes nonperturbative at redshift zero for small smoothing scales, with important contributions from higher-order terms: these will need to be studied before the full power of this tool can be realized.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".