MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401813317 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/036

Optimal constraints on Primordial non-Gaussianity with the eBOSS DR16 quasars in Fourier space

2024· article· en· W4401813317 on OpenAlexaff
M. S. Cagliari, Emanuele Castorina, Marco Bonici, D. Bianchi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNon-GaussianityQuasarSpace (punctuation)Fourier transformAstrophysicsAstronomyGalaxyCosmic microwave backgroundOpticsQuantum mechanicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present constraints on the amplitude of local Primordial Non-Gaussianities (PNG), f NL , using the quasar sample in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (eBOSS) Data Release 16 (DR16). We analyze the power spectrum monopole, testing for the presence of scale-dependent galaxy bias induced by local PNG. Our analysis makes use of optimal redshift weights that maximize the response of the quasar sample to the possible presence of non-zero PNG. We find -4 < f NL < 27 at 68% confidence level, which is among the strongest bounds with Large Scale Structure data. The optimal analysis reduces the error bar by ~10% compared to the standard one, but this improvement is lower than the one expected from previous forecasts. In addition, the larger volume of this dataset, when compared to previous releases of the eBOSS quasar catalog, does not always correspond to a reduction of the final uncertainty on local PNG. This could suggest the presence of still unknown systematic effects in the data. If the quasars have a lower response to local PNG, our optimal constraint becomes -23 < f NL < 21 at 68%, with an improvement of 30% over standard analyses. We also show how to use the optimal weights to put data-driven priors on the sample's response to local PNG.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207