Consistent lensing and clustering in a low-<i>S</i>8 Universe with BOSS, DES Year 3, HSC Year 1, and KiDS-1000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We evaluate the consistency between lensing and clustering based on measurements from Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey combined with galaxy–galaxy lensing from Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 3, Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program (HSC) Year 1, and Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS)-1000. We find good agreement between these lensing data sets. We model the observations using the Dark Emulator and fit the data at two fixed cosmologies: Planck (S8 = 0.83), and a Lensing cosmology (S8 = 0.76). For a joint analysis limited to large scales, we find that both cosmologies provide an acceptable fit to the data. Full utilization of the higher signal-to-noise small-scale measurements is hindered by uncertainty in the impact of baryon feedback and assembly bias, which we account for with a reasoned theoretical error budget. We incorporate a systematic inconsistency parameter for each redshift bin, A, that decouples the lensing and clustering. With a wide range of scales, we find different results for the consistency between the two cosmologies. Limiting the analysis to the bins for which the impact of the lens sample selection is expected to be minimal, for the Lensing cosmology, the measurements are consistent with A = 1; A = 0.91 ± 0.04 (A = 0.97 ± 0.06) using DES+KiDS (HSC). For the Planck case, we find a discrepancy: A = 0.79 ± 0.03 (A = 0.84 ± 0.05) using DES+KiDS (HSC). We demonstrate that a kinematic Sunyaev–Zeldovich-based estimate for baryonic effects alleviates some of the discrepancy in the Planck cosmology. This analysis demonstrates the statistical power of small-scale measurements; however, caution is still warranted given modelling uncertainties and foreground sample selection effects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".