CODEX weak lensing mass catalogue and implications on the mass–richness relation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The COnstrain Dark Energy with X-ray clusters (CODEX) sample contains the largest flux limited sample of X-ray clusters at 0.35 < z < 0.65. It was selected from ROSAT data in the 10 000 square degrees of overlap with BOSS, mapping a total number of 2770 high-z galaxy clusters. We present here the full results of the CFHT CODEX programme on cluster mass measurement, including a reanalysis of CFHTLS Wide data, with 25 individual lensing-constrained cluster masses. We employ lensfit shape measurement and perform a conservative colour–space selection and weighting of background galaxies. Using the combination of shape noise and an analytic covariance for intrinsic variations of cluster profiles at fixed mass due to large-scale structure, miscentring, and variations in concentration and ellipticity, we determine the likelihood of the observed shear signal as a function of true mass for each cluster. We combine 25 individual cluster mass likelihoods in a Bayesian hierarchical scheme with the inclusion of optical and X-ray selection functions to derive constraints on the slope α, normalization β, and scatter σln λ|μ of our richness–mass scaling relation model in log-space: ${\langle {\rm In}\,\, \lambda\!\!\mid\!\!\mu\rangle = \alpha\mu + \beta,} $ with μ = ln (M200c/Mpiv), and Mpiv = 1014.81M⊙. We find a slope $\alpha = 0.49^{+0.20}_{-0.15}$, normalization $\exp (\beta) = 84.0^{+9.2}_{-14.8}$, and $\sigma _{\ln \lambda | \mu } = 0.17^{+0.13}_{-0.09}$ using CFHT richness estimates. In comparison to other weak lensing richness–mass relations, we find the normalization of the richness statistically agreeing with the normalization of other scaling relations from a broad redshift range (0.0 < z < 0.65) and with different cluster selection (X-ray, Sunyaev–Zeldovich, and optical).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".