Euclid preparation: 6x2 pt analysis of Euclid's spectroscopic and photometric data sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present cosmological parameter forecasts for the Euclid 6x2pt statistics, which include the galaxy clustering and weak lensing main probes together with previously neglected cross-covariance and cross-correlation signals between imaging/photometric and spectroscopic data. The aim is understanding the impact of such terms on the Euclid performance. We produce 6x2pt cosmological forecasts, considering two different techniques: the so-called harmonic and hybrid approaches, respectively. In the first, we treat all the different Euclid probes in the same way, i.e. we consider only angular 2pt-statistics for spectroscopic and photometric clustering, as well as for weak lensing, analysing all their possible cross-covariances and cross-correlations in the spherical harmonic domain. In the second, we do not account for negligible cross-covariances between the 3D and 2D data, but consider the combination of their cross-correlation with the auto-correlation signals. We find that both cross-covariances and cross-correlation signals, have a negligible impact on the cosmological parameter constraints and, therefore, on the Euclid performance. In the case of the hybrid approach, we attribute this result to the effect of the cross-correlation between weak lensing and photometric data, which is dominant with respect to other cross-correlation signals. In the case of the 2D harmonic approach, we attribute this result to two main theoretical limitations of the 2D projected statistics implemented in this work according to the analysis of official Euclid forecasts: the high shot noise and the limited redshift range of the spectroscopic sample, together with the loss of radial information from subleading terms such as redshift-space distortions and lensing magnification. Our analysis suggests that 2D and 3D Euclid data can be safely treated as independent, with a great saving in computational resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.026 |
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".