Constraining modified gravity with weak-lensing peaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT It is well established that maximizing the information extracted from upcoming and ongoing stage-IV weak-lensing surveys requires higher order summary statistics that complement the standard two-point statistics. In this work, we focus on weak-lensing peak statistics to test two popular modified gravity models, $f(R)$ and nDGP, using the forge and bridge weak-lensing simulations, respectively. From these simulations, we measure the peak statistics as a function of both cosmological and modified gravity parameters simultaneously. Our findings indicate that the peak abundance is sensitive to the strength of modified gravity, while the peak two-point correlation function is sensitive to the nature of the screening mechanism in a modified gravity model. We combine these simulated statistics with a Gaussian Process Regression emulator and a Gaussian likelihood to generate stage-IV forecast posterior distributions for the modified gravity models. We demonstrate that, assuming small scales can be correctly modelled, peak statistics can be used to distinguish general relativity from $f(R)$ and nDGP models at the 2σ level with a stage-IV survey area of $300$ and $1000 \, \rm {deg}^2$, respectively. Finally, we show that peak statistics can constrain $\log _{10}\left(|f_{R0}|\right) = -6$ per cent to 2 per cent precision, and $\log _{10}(H_0 r_c) = 0.5$ per cent to 25 per cent precision.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".