Constraining the baryonic feedback with cosmic shear using the DES Year-3 small-scale measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We use the small scales of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year-3 cosmic shear measurements, which are excluded from the DES Year-3 cosmological analysis, to constrain the baryonic feedback. To model the baryonic feedback, we adopt a baryonic correction model and use the numerical package baccoemu to accelerate the evaluation of the baryonic non-linear matter power spectrum. We design our analysis pipeline to focus on the constraints of the baryonic suppression effects, utilizing the implication given by a principal component analysis on the Fisher forecasts. Our constraint on the baryonic effects can then be used to better model and ameliorate the effects of baryons in producing cosmological constraints from the next-generation large-scale structure surveys. We detect the baryonic suppression on the cosmic shear measurements with a ∼2σ significance. The characteristic halo mass for which half of the gas is ejected by baryonic feedback is constrained to be $M_c \gt 10^{13.2} \, h^{-1} \, \mathrm{M}_{\odot }$ (95 per cent C.L.). The best-fitting baryonic suppression is $\sim 5{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ at $k=1.0 \, {\rm Mpc}\ h^{-1}$ and $\sim 15{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ at $k=5.0 \, {\rm Mpc} \ h^{-1}$. Our findings are robust with respect to the assumptions about the cosmological parameters, specifics of the baryonic model, and intrinsic alignments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".