Ultralarge-scale approximations and galaxy clustering: Debiasing constraints on cosmological parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Upcoming galaxy surveys will allow us to probe the growth of the cosmic large-scale structure with improved sensitivity compared to current missions, and will also map larger areas of the sky. This means that in addition to the increased precision in observations, future surveys will also access the ultralarge-scale regime, where commonly neglected effects such as lensing, redshift-space distortions, and relativistic corrections become important for calculating correlation functions of galaxy positions. At the same time, several approximations usually made in these calculations such as the Limber approximation break down at those scales. The need to abandon these approximations and simplifying assumptions at large scales creates severe issues for parameter estimation methods. On the one hand, exact calculations of theoretical angular power spectra become computationally expensive, and the need to perform them thousands of times to reconstruct posterior probability distributions for cosmological parameters makes the approach unfeasible. On the other hand, neglecting relativistic effects and relying on approximations may significantly bias the estimates of cosmological parameters. In this work, we quantify this bias and investigate how an incomplete modelling of various effects on ultralarge scales could lead to false detections of new physics beyond the standard ΛCDM model. Furthermore, we propose a simple debiasing method that allows us to recover true cosmologies without running the full parameter estimation pipeline with exact theoretical calculations. This method can therefore provide a fast way of obtaining accurate values of cosmological parameters and estimates of exact posterior probability distributions from ultralarge-scale observations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".