Clustering of CODEX clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. The clustering of galaxy clusters links the spatial nonuniformity of dark matter halos to the growth of the primordial spectrum of perturbations. The amplitude of the clustering signal is widely used to estimate the halo mass of astrophysical objects. The advent of cluster mass calibrations enables using clustering in cosmological studies. Aims. We analyze the autocorrelation function of a large contiguous sample of galaxy clusters, the Constrain Dark Energy with X-ray (CODEX) sample, in which we take particular care of cluster definition. These clusters were X-ray selected using the ROentgen SATellite All-Sky Survey and then identified as galaxy clusters using the code redMaPPer run on the photometry of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We develop methods for precisely accounting for the sample selection effects on the clustering and demonstrate their robustness using numerical simulations. Methods. Using the clean CODEX sample, which was obtained by applying a redshift-dependent richness selection, we computed the two-point autocorrelation function of galaxy clusters in the 0.1 < z < 0.3 and 0.3 < z < 0.5 redshift bins. We compared the bias in the measured correlation function with values obtained in numerical simulations using a similar cluster mass range. Results. By fitting a power law, we measured a correlation length r0 = 18.7 ± 1.1 and slope γ = 1.98 ± 0.14 for the correlation function in the full redshift range. By fixing the other cosmological parameters to their nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe values, we reproduced the observed shape of the correlation function under the following cosmological conditions: Ωm0 = 0.22−0.03+0.04 and S8 = σ8(Ωm0/0.3)0.5 = 0.85−0.08+0.10 with estimated additional systematic errors of σΩm0 = 0.02 and σS8 = 0.20. We illustrate the complementarity of clustering constraints by combining them with CODEX cosmological constraints based on the X-ray luminosity function, deriving Ωm0 = 0.25 ± 0.01 and σ8 = 0.81−0.02+0.01 with an estimated additional systematic error of σΩm0 = 0.07 and σσ8 = 0.04. The mass calibration and statistical quality of the mass tracers are the dominant source of uncertainty.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".