<i>Euclid</i>preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photometric redshifts (photo-zs) are one of the main ingredients in the analysis of cosmological probes. Their accuracy particularly affects the results of the analyses of galaxy clustering with photometrically selected galaxies (GCph) and weak lensing. In the next decade, space missions such asEuclidwill collect precise and accurate photometric measurements for millions of galaxies. These data should be complemented with upcoming ground-based observations to derive precise and accurate photo-zs. In this article we explore how the tomographic redshift binning and depth of ground-based observations will affect the cosmological constraints expected from theEuclidmission. We focus on GCphand extend the study to include galaxy-galaxy lensing (GGL). We add a layer of complexity to the analysis by simulating several realistic photo-zdistributions based on theEuclidConsortium Flagship simulation and using a machine learning photo-zalgorithm. We then use the Fisher matrix formalism together with these galaxy samples to study the cosmological constraining power as a function of redshift binning, survey depth, and photo-zaccuracy. We find that bins with an equal width in redshift provide a higher figure of merit (FoM) than equipopulated bins and that increasing the number of redshift bins from ten to 13 improves the FoM by 35% and 15% for GCphand its combination with GGL, respectively. For GCph, an increase in the survey depth provides a higher FoM. However, when we include faint galaxies beyond the limit of the spectroscopic training data, the resulting FoM decreases because of the spurious photo-zs. When combining GCphand GGL, the number density of the sample, which is set by the survey depth, is the main factor driving the variations in the FoM. Adding galaxies at faint magnitudes and high redshift increases the FoM, even when they are beyond the spectroscopic limit, since the number density increase compensates for the photo-zdegradation in this case. We conclude that there is more information that can be extracted beyond the nominal ten tomographic redshift bins ofEuclidand that we should be cautious when adding faint galaxies into our sample since they can degrade the cosmological constraints.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.254 | 0.250 |
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".