Cosmology from HSC Y1 Weak Lensing with Combined Higher-Order Statistics and Simulation-based Inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present cosmological constraints from weak lensing with the Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) first-year (Y1) data, using a simulation-based inference (SBI) method. % We explore the performance of a set of higher-order statistics (HOS) including the Minkowski functionals, counts of peaks and minima, and the probability distribution function and compare them to the traditional two-point statistics. The HOS, also known as non-Gaussian statistics, can extract additional non-Gaussian information that is inaccessible to the two-point statistics. We use a neural network to compress the summary statistics, followed by an SBI approach to infer the posterior distribution of the cosmological parameters. We apply cuts on angular scales and redshift bins to mitigate the impact of systematic effects. Combining two-point and non-Gaussian statistics, we obtain $S_8 \equiv σ_8 \sqrt{Ω_m/0.3} = 0.804_{-0.040}^{+0.041}$ and $Ω_m = 0.344_{-0.090}^{+0.083}$, similar to that from non-Gaussian statistics alone. These results are consistent with previous HSC analyses and Planck 2018 cosmology. Our constraints from non-Gaussian statistics are $\sim 25\%$ tighter in $S_8$ than two-point statistics, where the main improvement lies in $Ω_m$, with $\sim 40$\% tighter error bar compared to using the angular power spectrum alone ($S_8 = 0.766_{-0.056}^{+0.054}$ and $Ω_m = 0.365_{-0.141}^{+0.148}$). We find that, among the non-Gaussian statistics we studied, the Minkowski functionals are the primary driver for this improvement. Our analyses confirm the SBI as a powerful approach for cosmological constraints, avoiding any assumptions about the functional form of the data's likelihood.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".