MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105084986

Weak lensing study of galaxy biasing

2002· article· en· W3105084986 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmologyGalaxyAstrophysicsRedshiftBiasingScale (ratio)Galaxy clusterStatisticsMathematicsVoltageQuantum mechanics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We combine weak lensing measurements from the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey and the VIRMOS-DESCART survey, and present the first direct measurements of the bias parameter b and the galaxy-mass cross-correlation coefficient r on scales ranging from 0.2 to 9.3 h_{50}^{-1} Mpc at a lens redshift z~0.35. We find strong evidence that both b and r change with scale for our sample of lens galaxies (19.5<R_C<21), which have luminosities around L_*. For the currently favored cosmology (\\Omega_m=0.3,\\Omega_\\Lambda=0.7), we find b=0.71^+0.06_-0.04 on a scale of 1-2 Mpc, increasing to ~1 on larger scales. The value of r has only minimal dependence on the assumed cosmology. The variation of r with scale is very similar to that of b, and reaches a minimum value of r=0.57^+0.08_-0.07 (at 1 Mpc). This suggests significant stochastic biasing and/or non-linear biasing. On scales larger than ~4 Mpc the value of r is consistent with a value of 1. In addition we use RCS data alone to measure the ratio b/r on scale ranging from 0.15 to 12.5 Mpc, and find that the ratio varies somewhat with scale. We obtain an average value of b/r=1.090+-0.035, in good agreement with previous estimates. A (future) careful comparison of our results with models of galaxy formation can provide unique constraints, as r is linked intimately to the details of galaxy formation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207