Cosmic shear power spectra in practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cosmic shear is one of the most powerful probes of Dark Energy, targeted by several current and future galaxy surveys. Lensing shear, however, is only sampled at the positions of galaxies with measured shapes in the catalog, making its associated sky window function one of the most complicated amongst all projected cosmological probes of inhomogeneities, as well as giving rise to inhomogeneous noise. Partly for this reason, cosmic shear analyses have been mostly carried out in real-space, making use of correlation functions, as opposed to Fourier-space power spectra. Since the use of power spectra can yield complementary information and has numerical advantages over real-space pipelines, it is important to develop a complete formalism describing the standard unbiased power spectrum estimators as well as their associated uncertainties. Building on previous work, this paper contains a study of the main complications associated with estimating and interpreting shear power spectra, and presents fast and accurate methods to estimate two key quantities needed for their practical usage: the noise bias and the Gaussian covariance matrix, fully accounting for survey geometry, with some of these results also applicable to other cosmological probes. We demonstrate the performance of these methods by applying them to the latest public data releases of the Hyper Suprime-Cam and the Dark Energy Survey collaborations, quantifying the presence of systematics in our measurements and the validity of the covariance matrix estimate. We make the resulting power spectra, covariance matrices, null tests and all associated data necessary for a full cosmological analysis publicly available.
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 | 0.007 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".