Constraining νΛCDM with density-split clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The dependence of galaxy clustering on local density provides an effective method for extracting non-Gaussian information from galaxy surveys. The two-point correlation function (2PCF) provides a complete statistical description of a Gaussian density field. However, the late-time density field becomes non-Gaussian due to non-linear gravitational evolution and higher-order summary statistics are required to capture all of its cosmological information. Using a Fisher formalism based on halo catalogues from the Quijote simulations, we explore the possibility of retrieving this information using the density-split clustering (DS) method, which combines clustering statistics from regions of different environmental density. We show that DS provides more precise constraints on the parameters of the νΛCDM model compared to the 2PCF, and we provide suggestions for where the extra information may come from. DS improves the constraints on the sum of neutrino masses by a factor of 7 and by factors of 4, 3, 3, 6, and 5 for Ωm, Ωb, h, ns, and σ8, respectively. We compare DS statistics when the local density environment is estimated from the real or redshift-space positions of haloes. The inclusion of DS autocorrelation functions, in addition to the cross-correlation functions between DS environments and haloes, recovers most of the information that is lost when using the redshift-space halo positions to estimate the environment. We discuss the possibility of constructing simulation-based methods to model DS clustering statistics in different scenarios.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".