MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397001103 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.103528

Cosmological constraints from the redshift-space galaxy skew spectra

2024· article· en· W4397001103 on OpenAlexaff
Jiamin Hou, Azadeh Moradinezhad Dizgah, ChangHoon Hahn, Michael Eickenberg, Shirley Ho, Pablo Lemos, Elena Massara, Chirag Modi, Liam Parker, Bruno Régaldo-Saint Blancard

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversité de MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsUniversité de GenèveEuropean CommissionUniversity of Florida
KeywordsPhysicsGalaxyRedshiftBispectrumAstrophysicsSkewSpectral lineInferenceSpectral densityComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsAstronomyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracting the non-Gaussian information of the cosmic large-scale structure (LSS) is vital in unlocking the full potential of the rich datasets from the upcoming stage-IV galaxy surveys. Galaxy skew spectra serve as efficient beyond-two-point statistics, encapsulating essential bispectrum information with computational efficiency akin to power spectrum analysis. This paper presents the first cosmological constraints from analyzing the full set of redshift-space galaxy skew spectra of the data from the SDSS-III BOSS, accessing cosmological information down to nonlinear scales. Employing the forward modeling framework and simulation-based inference via normalizing flows, we analyze the CMASS-SGC subsample, which constitute approximately 10% of the full BOSS data. Analyzing the scales up to k max = 0.5 h − 1 Mpc , we find that the skew spectra improve the constraints on Ω m , Ω b , h , and n s by 34%, 35%, 18%, 10%, respectively, compared to constraints from previous power spectrum multipoles analysis, yielding Ω m = 0.28 8 − 0.034 + 0.024 , Ω b = 0.04 3 − 0.007 + 0.005 , h = 0.75 9 − 0.050 + 0.104 , n s = 0.91 8 − 0.090 + 0.041 (at 68% confidence limit). On the other hand, the constraints on σ 8 are weaker than from the power spectrum. Including the big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) prior on baryon density reduces the uncertainty on the Hubble parameter further, achieving h = 0.75 0 − 0.032 + 0.034 , which is a 38% improvement over the constraint from the power spectrum with the same prior. Compared to the bispectrum (monopole) analysis, skew spectra offer comparable constraints on larger scales ( k max < 0.3 h − 1 Mpc ) for most parameters except for σ 8 . Published by the American Physical Society 2024

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations26
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207