MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4378388252 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1591

Phenomenological power spectrum models for H α emission line galaxies from the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope

2023· article· en· W4378388252 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin S. McCarthy, Zhongxu Zhai, Yun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsRedshiftAstrophysicsGalaxyPhenomenological modelSpectral densityRedshift surveyQuantum mechanicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The High Latitude Spectroscopic Survey (HLSS) is the reference baseline spectroscopic survey for NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, measuring redshifts of ∼10M H α emission line galaxies over a 2000 deg2 footprint at z = 1–2. In this work, we use a realistic Roman galaxy mock catalogue to explore optimal phenomenological modelling of the measured power spectrum. We consider two methods for modelling the redshift-space distortions (Kaiser squashing and another with a window function on β that selects out the coherent radial infall pairwise velocities, $\mathcal {M}_A$ and $\mathcal {M}_B$, respectively), two models for the non-linear impact of baryons that smear the baryon acoustic oscillation signal (a fixed ratio between the smearing scales in the perpendicular and parallel dimensions and another where these smearing scales are kept as free parameters, Pdw(k|k*) and Pdw(k|Σ⊥, Σ∥), respectively), and two analytical emulations of non-linear growth (one employing the halo model and another formulated from simulated galaxy clustering of a semi-analytical model, $\mathcal {F}_{HM}$ and $\mathcal {F}_{\it SAM}$, respectively). We find that the best model combination employing $\mathcal {F}_{HM}$ is $P_{dw}(k|k_*)*\mathcal {F}_{HM}*\mathcal {M}_B$, while the best combination employing $\mathcal {F}_{\it SAM}$ is $P_{dw}(k|k_*)*\mathcal {F}_{\it SAM}*\mathcal {M}_B$, which leads to unbiased measurements of cosmological parameters. We compare these to the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure perturbation theory model PEFT(k|Θ), and find that our simple phenomenological models are comparable across the entire redshift range for kmax = 0.25 and 0.3 h Mpc−1. We expect the tools that we have developed to be useful in probing dark energy and testing gravity using Roman in an accurate and robust manner.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→