<i>Euclid</i> preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we investigate the impact of lensing magnification on the analysis of Euclid’s spectroscopic survey using the multipoles of the two-point correlation function for galaxy clustering. We determine the impact of lensing magnification on cosmological constraints as well as the expected shift in the best-fit parameters if magnification is ignored. We considered two cosmological analyses: (i) a full-shape analysis based on the Λ cold dark matter (CDM) model and its extension w0waCDM and (ii) a model-independent analysis that measures the growth rate of structure in each redshift bin. We adopted two complementary approaches in our forecast: the Fisher matrix formalism and the Markov chain Monte Carlo method. The fiducial values of the local count slope (or magnification bias), which regulates the amplitude of the lensing magnification, have been estimated from the Euclid Flagship simulations. We used linear perturbation theory and modelled the two-point correlation function with the public code coffe. For a ΛCDM model, we find that the estimation of cosmological parameters is biased at the level of 0.4–0.7 standard deviations, while for a w0waCDM dynamical dark energy model, lensing magnification has a somewhat smaller impact, with shifts below 0.5 standard deviations. For a model-independent analysis aimed at measuring the growth rate of structure, we find that the estimation of the growth rate is biased by up to 1.2 standard deviations in the highest redshift bin. As a result, lensing magnification cannot be neglected in the spectroscopic survey, especially if we want to determine the growth factor, one of the most promising ways to test general relativity with Euclid. We also find that, by including lensing magnification with a simple template, this shift can be almost entirely eliminated with minimal computational overhead.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.219 | 0.149 |
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".