Constraining cosmology with weak lensing voids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Upcoming surveys such as lsst and euclid will significantly improve the power of weak lensing as a cosmological probe. To maximise the information that can be extracted from these surveys, it is important to explore novel statistics that complement standard weak lensing statistics such as the shear-shear correlation function and peak counts. In this work, we use a recently proposed weak lensing observable — weak lensing voids — to make parameter constraint forecasts for an $\rm \small {LSST}$-like survey. We use the cosmo-SLICS wCDM simulation suite to measure void statistics as a function of cosmological parameters. The simulation data is used to train a Gaussian process regression emulator that we use to generate likelihood contours and provide parameter constraints from mock observations. We find that the void abundance is more constraining than the tangential shear profiles, though the combination of the two gives additional constraining power. We forecast that without tomographic decomposition, these void statistics can constrain the matter fluctuation amplitude, S8 within 0.3 per cent (68 per cent confidence interval), while offering 1.5, 1.5 and 2.7 per cent precision on the matter density parameter, Ωm, the reduced Hubble constant, h, and the dark energy equation of state parameter, w0, respectively. These results are tighter than the constraints from the shear-shear correlation function with the same observational specifications for Ωm, S8 and w0. The constraints from the WL voids also have complementary parameter degeneracy directions to the shear 2PCF for all combinations of parameters that include h, making weak lensing void statistics a promising cosmological probe.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".