MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4294527371 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244405

Biased tracers as a probe of beyond-ΛCDM cosmologies

2022· article· en· W4294527371 on OpenAlexaff
Farbod Hassani, Julian Adamek, Ruth Durrer, M. Kunz

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversité de GenèveNational Supercomputing Centre SingaporeNorges ForskningsrådUniversitetet i OsloSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungCentro Svizzero di Calcolo ScientificoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsCosmologyNeutrinoDark matterRedshiftMatter power spectrumSpectral densityMeasure (data warehouse)AstrophysicsCluster analysisScale (ratio)HaloCold dark matterDark energyStatistical physicsParticle physicsComputer scienceMachine learningGalaxyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cosmological models beyond ΛCDM, such as those featuring massive neutrinos or modifications of gravity, often display a characteristic change (scale-dependent suppression or enhancement) in the matter power spectrum when compared to a six-parameter ΛCDM baseline. It is therefore a widely held view that constraints on those models can be obtained by searching for such features in the clustering statistics of large-scale structure. However, when using biased tracers of matter in the analysis, the situation is complicated by the fact that the bias also depends on cosmology. Here we investigate how the selection of tracers affects the observed signatures for two examples of beyond-ΛCDM cosmologies: massive neutrinos and clustering dark energy (k-essence). We study the signatures in the monopole, quadrupole, and hexadecapole of the redshift-space power spectra for halo catalogues from large N-body simulations and argue that a fixed selection criterion based on local attributes, such as tracer mass, leads to a near loss of signal in most cases. Instead, the full signal is recovered only if the selection of tracers is done at fixed bias. This emphasises the need to model or measure the bias parameters accurately in order to get meaningful constraints on the cosmological model.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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