Euclid preparation : XLIV. Modelling spectroscopic clustering on mildly nonlinear scales in beyond-ΛCDM models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the approximations needed to efficiently predict the large-scale clustering of matter and dark matter halos in beyond-$Λ$CDM scenarios. We examine the normal branch of the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati model, the Hu-Sawicki $f(R)$ model, a slowly evolving dark energy, an interacting dark energy model and massive neutrinos. For each, we test approximations for the perturbative kernel calculations, including the omission of screening terms and the use of perturbative kernels based on the Einstein-de Sitter universe; we explore different infrared-resummation schemes, tracer bias models and a linear treatment of massive neutrinos; we employ two models for redshift space distortions, the Taruya-Nishimishi-Saito prescription and the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure. This work further provides a preliminary validation of the codes being considered by Euclid for the spectroscopic clustering probe in beyond-$Λ$CDM scenarios. We calculate and compare the $χ^2$ statistic to assess the different modelling choices. This is done by fitting the spectroscopic clustering predictions to measurements from numerical simulations and perturbation theory-based mock data. We compare the behaviour of this statistic in the beyond-$Λ$CDM cases, as a function of the maximum scale included in the fit, to the baseline $Λ$CDM case. We find that the Einstein-de Sitter approximation without screening is surprisingly accurate for all cases when comparing to the halo clustering monopole and quadrupole obtained from simulations. Our results suggest that the inclusion of multiple redshift bins, higher-order multipoles, higher-order clustering statistics (such as the bispectrum) and photometric probes such as weak lensing, will be essential to extract information on massive neutrinos, modified gravity and dark energy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
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".