The infall region as a complementary probe to cluster abundance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Galaxy cluster abundance measurements provide a classic test of cosmology. They are most sensitive to the evolved amplitude of fluctuations, usually expressed as $S_8 = \sigma _8\sqrt{\Omega _{\rm m}/0.3}$. Thus, abundance constraints exhibit a strong degeneracy between $\sigma _8$ and $\Omega _{\rm m}$, as do other similar low-redshift tests such as cosmic shear. The mass distribution in the infall region around galaxy clusters, where material is being accreted from the surrounding field, also exhibits a cosmological dependence, but in this case it is nearly orthogonal to the $S_8$ direction in the $\Omega _{\rm m}$–$\sigma _8$ plane, making it highly complementary to halo abundance or cosmic shear studies. We explore how weak-lensing measurements of the infall region might be used to complement abundance studies, considering three different tests. The splashback radius is a prominent feature of the infall region; we show that detection of this feature in lensing data from the Euclid survey could independently constrain $\Omega _{\rm m}$ and $\sigma _8$ to $\pm 0.05$. Another feature, the depletion radius where the bias reaches a minimum, also shows cosmological dependence, though it is challenging to observe in practice. The strongest constraints come from direct measurements of the shear profile in the infall region at 2–$4\, r_{200{\rm c}}$. Combining the latter with abundance constraints such as those reported from SRG$/$eROSITA should reduce the area of the error contours by an estimated factor of 1.2 using a sample of clusters observed by the UNIONS survey, or a factor of 3 using clusters observed by the Euclid Wide survey over a broader range of redshift.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".