Euclid: Forecasts for k-cut 3×2 Point Statistics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modelling uncertainties at small scales, i.e. high $k$ in the power spectrum $P(k)$, due to baryonic feedback, nonlinear structure growth and the fact that galaxies are biased tracers poses a significant obstacle to fully leverage the constraining power of the Euclid wide-field survey. $k$-cut cosmic shear has recently been proposed as a method to optimally remove sensitivity to these scales while preserving usable information. In this paper we generalise the $k$-cut cosmic shear formalism to $3 \times 2$ point statistics and estimate the loss of information for different $k$-cuts in a $3 \times 2$ point analysis of the {\it Euclid} data. Extending the Fisher matrix analysis of Euclid Collaboration: Blanchard et al. (2019), we assess the degradation in constraining power for different $k$-cuts. We find that taking a $k$-cut at $2.6 \ h \ {\rm Mpc} ^{-1}$ yields a dark energy Figure of Merit (FOM) of 1018. This is comparable to taking a weak lensing cut at $\ell = 5000$ and a galaxy clustering and galaxy-galaxy lensing cut at $\ell = 3000$ in a traditional $3 \times 2$ point analysis. We also find that the fraction of the observed galaxies used in the photometric clustering part of the analysis is one of the main drivers of the FOM. Removing $50 \% \ (90 \%)$ of the clustering galaxies decreases the FOM by $19 \% \ (62 \%)$. Given that the FOM depends so heavily on the fraction of galaxies used in the clustering analysis, extensive efforts should be made to handle the real-world systematics present when extending the analysis beyond the luminous red galaxy (LRG) sample. This paper is published on behalf of the Euclid Consortium: http://euclid-ec.org
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".