Accurate analytic model for the weak lensing convergence one-point probability distribution function and its autocovariance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The one-point probability distribution function (PDF) is a powerful summary statistic for non-Gaussian cosmological fields, such as the weak lensing (WL) convergence reconstructed from galaxy shapes or cosmic microwave background (CMB) maps. Thus far, no analytic model has been developed that successfully describes the high-convergence tail of the WL convergence PDF for small smoothing scales from first principles. Here, we present a halo-model formalism to compute the WL convergence PDF, building upon our previous results for the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich field. Furthermore, we extend our formalism to analytically compute the covariance matrix of the convergence PDF. Comparisons to numerical simulations generally confirm the validity of our formalism in the non-Gaussian, positive tail of the WL convergence PDF, but also reveal the convergence PDF's strong sensitivity to small-scale systematic effects in the simulations (e.g., due to finite resolution). Finally, we present a simple Fisher forecast for a Rubin-Observatory-like survey, based on our new analytic model. Considering the ${{A}_{s},{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Omega}}}_{m},\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Sigma}}{m}_{\ensuremath{\nu}}}$ parameter space and assuming a Planck CMB prior on ${A}_{s}$ only, we forecast a marginalized constraint $\ensuremath{\sigma}(\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Sigma}}{m}_{\ensuremath{\nu}})\ensuremath{\approx}0.08\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{eV}$ from the WL convergence PDF alone, even after marginalizing over parameters describing the halo concentration-mass relation. This error bar on the neutrino mass sum is comparable to the minimum value allowed in the normal hierarchy, illustrating the strong constraining power of the WL convergence PDF. We make our code publicly available at https://github.com/leanderthiele/hmpdf.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".