Cosmological constraints from DES Y1 cluster abundances and SPT multiwavelength data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We perform a joint analysis of the counts of redMaPPer clusters selected from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) year 1 data and multiwavelength follow-up data collected within the $2500\text{ }\text{ }{\mathrm{deg}}^{2}$ South Pole Telescope (SPT) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) survey. The SPT follow-up data, calibrating the richness-mass relation of the optically selected redMaPPer catalog, enable the cosmological exploitation of the DES cluster abundance data. To explore possible systematics related to the modeling of projection effects, we consider two calibrations of the observational scatter on richness estimates: a simple Gaussian model which account only for the background contamination (BKG), and a model which further includes contamination and incompleteness due to projection effects (PRJ). Assuming either a $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}\mathrm{CDM}+\ensuremath{\sum}{m}_{\ensuremath{\nu}}$ or $w\mathrm{CDM}+\ensuremath{\sum}{m}_{\ensuremath{\nu}}$ cosmology, and for both scatter models, we derive cosmological constraints consistent with multiple cosmological probes of the low and high redshift Universe, and in particular with the SPT cluster abundance data. This result demonstrates that the DES Y1 and SPT cluster counts provide consistent cosmological constraints, if the same mass calibration data set is adopted. It thus supports the conclusion of the DES Y1 cluster cosmology analysis which interprets the tension observed with other cosmological probes in terms of systematics affecting the stacked weak lensing analysis of optically selected low--richness clusters. Finally, we analyze the first combined optically SZ selected cluster catalog obtained by including the SPT sample above the maximum redshift probed by the DES Y1 redMaPPer sample ($z=0.65$). Besides providing a mild improvement of the cosmological constraints, this data combination serves as a stricter test of our scatter models: the PRJ model, providing scaling relations consistent between the two abundance and multiwavelength follow-up data, is favored over the BKG model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".