Consistent clustering and lensing of SDSS-III BOSS galaxies with an extended abundance matching formalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Several analyses have shown that Λ cold dark matter-based models cannot jointly describe the clustering (GC) and galaxy–galaxy lensing (GGL) of galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey-III (SDSS-III) Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS), which is commonly known as the ‘lensing-is-low problem’. In this work, we show that an extension of Subhalo Abundance Matching, dubbed SHAMe, successfully solves this problem. First, we show that this model accurately reproduces the GC and GGL of a mock galaxy sample in the TNG300 hydrodynamic simulation with properties analogous to those of BOSS galaxies. Then, we switch our attention to observed BOSS galaxies at z = 0.31−0.43, and we attempt to reproduce their GC and GGL by evaluating SHAMe on two different simulations: one adopting best-fitting cosmological parameters from Planck and the other from weak gravitational lensing surveys (Low S8), where the amplitude of matter fluctuations is lower for the latter. We find excellent agreement between SHAMe predictions and observations for both cosmologies, indicating that the lensing-is-low problem originates from approximations in previous theoretical descriptions of the data. The main difference between SHAMe results in these cosmologies is the level of galaxy assembly bias, which is approximately 20 per cent and 10 per cent for Planck and Low S8, respectively. These results highlight the dangers of employing oversimplified models to analyse current large-scale structure data sets, and the need for realistic yet flexible descriptions of the galaxy–halo connection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".