MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4286613002 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142325

Cosmology with the kinetic Sunyaev–Zeldovich effect: Independent of the optical depth and <i>σ</i><sub>8</sub>

2022· article· en· W4286613002 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Kuruvilla

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsPhysicsKinetic energyAstrophysicsCosmologyOptical depthClassical mechanicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cosmological constraints obtained by the kinetic Sunyaev–Zeldovich experiments are degenerate with the optical depth measurement – an effect that is commonly known as the optical-depth degeneracy. In this work, we introduce a new statistic based on the first moment of relative velocity between pairs in a triplet, which is capable of constraining cosmological parameters independently of the optical depth and of σ8. Using 22 000 N-body simulations from the Quijote suite, we quantified the information content in the new statistic using Fisher matrix forecast. We find that it is able to obtain strong constraints on the cosmological parameters, particularly on the summed neutrino mass. The constraints bring an improvement on all cosmological model parameters by a factor of 6.2–12.9 and 2.3–5.7 when compared to those obtained from the mean pairwise velocity and from the redshift-space halo power spectrum, respectively. Thus, this new statistic paves a way forward in constraining cosmological parameters independent of the optical depth and σ8 when using data from future kinetic Sunyaev–Zeldovich experiments alone.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→