MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221152511 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.023530

Joint analysis of Dark Energy Survey Year 3 data and CMB lensing from SPT and<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>. II. Cross-correlation measurements and cosmological constraints

2023· article· lv· W4221152511 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Chang, Y. Omori, Eric J. Baxter, C. Doux, A. Choi, S. Pandey, A. Alarcon, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, K. Bechtol, M. R. Becker, G. M. Bernstein, F. Bianchini, J. Blazek, L. E. Bleem, H. Camacho, A. Campos, A. Carnero Rosell, M. Carrasco Kind, R. Cawthon, R. Chen, J. Cordero, T. M. Crawford, M. Crocce, C. Davis, J. DeRose, Scott Dodelson, A. Drlica-Wagner, K. Eckert, T. F. Eifler, F. Elsner, J. Elvin-Poole, S. Everett, Xiao Fang, A. Ferté, P. Fosalba, O. Friedrich, M. Gatti, G. Giannini, D. Gruen, R. A. Gruendl, I. Harrison, K. Herner, H. Huang, Eric Huff, Dragan Huterer, Mike Jarvis, András Kovács, E. Krause, N. Kuropatkin, P. -F. Leget, Pablo Lemos, Andrew R. Liddle, N. MacCrann, J. McCullough, J. Muir, J. Myles, A Navarro-Alsina, Y. Park, A. Porredon, J. Prat, Marco Raveri, R. P. Rollins, A. Roodman, R. Rosenfeld, Ashley J. Ross, E. S. Rykoff, C. Sánchez, J. Sanchez, L. F. Secco, I. Sevilla-Noarbe, E. Sheldon, T. Shin, M. A. Troxel, I. Tutusaus, T. N. Varga, N. Weaverdyck, Risa H. Wechsler, W. L. K. Wu, B. Yanny, B. Yin, Y. Zhang, J. Zuntz, T. M. C. Abbott, M Aguena, S. Allam, J. Annis, D. Bacon, B. A. Benson, E. Bertin, S. Bocquet, D. Brooks, D. L. Burke, J. E. Carlstrom, J. Carretero, C. L. Chang, Ryan Chown, M. Costanzi, L. N. da Costa, A. T. Crites, M. E. S. Pereira, T. de Haan, J. De Vicente, S. Desai, H. T. Diehl, M. Dobbs, P. Doel, W. Everett, I. Ferrero, B. Flaugher, D. Friedel, J. Frieman, J. García-Bellido, E. Gaztañaga, E. M. George, T. Giannantonio, N. W. Halverson, S. R. Hinton, G. P. Holder, W. L. Holzapfel, K. Honscheid, J. D. Hrubes, D. J. James, L. Knox, K. Kuehn, O. Lahav, A. T. Lee, M. Lima, D. Luong-Van, M. March, J. J. McMahon, P. Melchior, F. Menanteau, S. S. Meyer, R. Miquel, L. Mocanu, J. J. Mohr, R. Morgan, T. Natoli, S. Padin, A. Palmese, F. Paz-Chinchón, A. Pieres, C. Pryke, C. L. Reichardt, M. Rodríguez-Monroy, A. K. Romer, J. E. Ruhl, E. Sánchez, K. K. Schaffer, M. Schubnell, S. Serrano, E. Shirokoff, M. Smith, Z. Staniszewski, A. A. Stark, E. Suchyta, G. Tarlé, D. Thomas, C. To, J. D. Vieira, J. Weller, R. Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2023
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoPerimeter Institute
FundersSLAC National Accelerator LaboratoryH2020 European Research CouncilArgonne National LaboratoryAustralian Research CouncilFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of ChicagoSeventh Framework ProgrammeUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónCentro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y TecnológicasConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoHigh Energy PhysicsMcGill UniversityDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftGeneralitat de CatalunyaOffice of ScienceUniversity of EdinburghFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroCenter for Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Ohio State UniversityUniversity of SussexInstitut de Física d'Altes EnergiesEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichNational Centre for Supercomputing ApplicationsUniversity of PortsmouthUniversity of ChicagoTexas A and M UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of MichiganInstituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia de Fármacos e MedicamentosOhio State UniversityMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoHigher Education Funding Council for EnglandLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryFinanciadora de Estudos e ProjetosUniversity of PennsylvaniaStanford UniversityAlfred P. Sloan FoundationU.S. Department of EnergyUniversity of CaliforniaFermilabNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundAstrophysicsGalaxyPlanckGravitational lensDark energyWeak gravitational lensingOmegaSouth Pole TelescopeSkyAstronomyRedshiftCosmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-correlations of galaxy positions and galaxy shears with maps of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) are sensitive to the distribution of large-scale structure in the Universe. Such cross-correlations are also expected to be immune to some of the systematic effects that complicate correlation measurements internal to galaxy surveys. We present measurements and modeling of the cross-correlations between galaxy positions and galaxy lensing measured in the first three years of data from the Dark Energy Survey with CMB lensing maps derived from a combination of data from the 2500 deg2 SPT-SZ survey conducted with the South Pole Telescope and full-sky data from the Planck satellite. The CMB lensing maps used in this analysis have been constructed in a way that minimizes biases from the thermal Sunyaev Zel'dovich effect, making them well suited for cross-correlation studies. The total signal-to-noise of the cross-correlation measurements is 23.9 (25.7) when using a choice of angular scales optimized for a linear (nonlinear) galaxy bias model. We use the cross-correlation measurements to obtain constraints on cosmological parameters. For our fiducial galaxy sample, which consist of four bins of magnitude-selected galaxies, we find constraints of ωm=0.272-0.052+0.032 and S8σ8ωm/0.3=0.736-0.028+0.032 (ωm=0.245-0.044+0.026 and S8=0.734-0.028+0.035) when assuming linear (nonlinear) galaxy bias in our modeling. Considering only the cross-correlation of galaxy shear with CMB lensing, we find ωm=0.270-0.061+0.043 and S8=0.740-0.029+0.034. Our constraints on S8 are consistent with recent cosmic shear measurements, but lower than the values preferred by primary CMB measurements from Planck. © 2023 American Physical Society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207