MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402909386 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2243

Improved weak lensing photometric redshift calibration via StratLearn and hierarchical modelling

2024· article· en· W4402909386 on OpenAlexafffund
Maximilian Autenrieth, Angus H. Wright, Roberto Trotta, David A. van Dyk, David C. Stenning, Benjamin Joachimi

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Systems and Laser Technology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersDeutsches Zentrum für Luft- und RaumfahrtHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionBundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz
KeywordsPhysicsPhotometric redshiftWeak gravitational lensingRedshiftGravitational lensAstrophysicsCalibrationStrong gravitational lensingRed shiftAstronomyGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Discrepancies between cosmological parameter estimates from cosmic shear surveys and from recent Planck cosmic microwave background measurements challenge the ability of the highly successful $\Lambda$CDM model to describe the nature of the Universe. To rule out systematic biases in cosmic shear survey analyses, accurate redshift calibration within tomographic bins is key. In this paper, we improve photo-z calibration via Bayesian hierarchical modeling of full galaxy photo-z conditional densities, by employing ${\it StratLearn}$, a recently developed statistical methodology, which accounts for systematic differences in the distribution of the spectroscopic training/source set and the photometric target set. Using realistic simulations that were designed to resemble the KiDS + VIKING-450 data set, we show that ${\it StratLearn}$-estimated conditional densities improve the galaxy tomographic bin assignment, and that our ${\it StratLearn}$-Bayesian framework leads to nearly unbiased estimates of the target population means. This leads to a factor of $\sim 2$ improvement upon often used and state-of-the-art photo-z calibration methods. Our approach delivers a maximum bias per tomographic bin of $\Delta \langle z \rangle = 0.0095 \pm 0.0089$, with an average absolute bias of $0.0052 \pm 0.0067$ across the five tomographic bins.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.187
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicOptical Systems and Laser TechnologyFrench-language works237,207