Cosmological forecasts from the combination of Stage-IV photometric galaxy surveys and the magnification from forthcoming GW observatories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work we have investigated the synergy between Stage-IV galaxy surveys and future GW observatories for constraining the underlying cosmological model of the Universe, focussing on photometric galaxy clustering, cosmic shear and GW magnification as cosmological probes. We have implemented a Fisher matrix approach for the evaluation of the full 6×2pt statistics composed by the angular power spectra of the single probes together with their combination. For our analysis, we have in particular considered dynamical dark energy and massive neutrino scenarios. We have found that the improvement to galaxy survey performance is below 1%, in the case of ℓ GW max=100 and a luminosity distance error of σ dL /dL =10%. However, when extending the analysis to ℓ GW max=1000, we find that the GW magnification improves the galaxy survey performance on all the cosmological parameters, reducing their errors by 3%-5%, when σ dL /dL =10%, and by 10%-18% when σ dL /dL =1%, especially for Mν , w 0 and wa . However, here our analysis is unavoidably optimistic: a much more detailed and realistic approach will be needed, especially by including systematic effects. But we can conclude that, in the case of future gravitational wave observatories, the inclusion of the gravitational wave magnification can improve Stage-IV galaxy surveys performance on constraining the underlying cosmological model of the Universe.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".