The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing and SDSS BOSS cross-correlation measurement and constraints on gravity with the $E_G$ statistic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We derive new constraints on the $E_G$ statistic as a test of gravity, combining the CMB lensing map estimated from Data Release 6 (DR6) of the Atacama Cosmology Telescope with SDSS BOSS CMASS and LOWZ galaxy data. We develop an analysis pipeline to measure the cross-correlation between CMB lensing maps and galaxy data, following a blinding policy and testing the approach through null and consistency checks. By testing the equivalence of the spatial and temporal gravitational potentials, the $E_G$ statistic can distinguish $\Lambda$CDM from alternative models of gravity. We find $E_G= 0.31^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ for ACT and CMASS data at 68.28\% confidence level, and $E_G = 0.49^{+0.14}_{-0.11}$ for ACT and LOWZ. Systematic errors are estimated to be 3\% and 4\% respectively. Including CMB lensing information from Planck PR4 results in $E_G = 0.34^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ with CMASS and $E_G= 0.43^{+0.11}_{-0.09}$ with LOWZ. These are consistent with predictions for the $\Lambda$CDM model that best fits the Planck CMB anisotropy and SDSS BOSS BAO, where $E_G^{\rm GR} (z_{\rm eff} = 0.555) = 0.401\pm 0.005$ for CMB lensing combined with CMASS and $E_G^{\rm GR} (z_{\rm eff} = 0.316) = 0.452\pm0.005$ combined with LOWZ. We also find $E_G$ to be scale independent, with PTE $>5\%$, as predicted by general relativity. The methods developed in this work are also applicable to improved future analyses with upcoming spectroscopic galaxy samples and CMB lensing measurements.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".