Testing the framework of the halo occupation distribution with assembly bias modelling and empirical extensions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We investigate theoretical systematics caused by the application of the halo occupation distribution (HOD) to the study of galaxy clustering at non-linear scales. To do this, we repeat recent cosmological analyses using extended HOD models based on both the Aemulus and Aemulus $\nu$ simulation suites, allowing for variations in the dark matter halo shape, incompleteness, baryonic effects, and position bias of central galaxies. We fit to the galaxy correlation function including the projected correlation function, redshift-space monopole and quadrupole, and consider how the changes in HOD affect the retrieval of cosmological information. These extensions can be understood as an evaluation of the impact of the secondary bias in the clustering analysis. In the application of BOSS (Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey) galaxies, these changes do not have a significant impact on the measured linear growth rate. However, we do find weak to mild evidence for some of the effects modelled by the empirical parametrizations adopted. The modelling is able to make the HOD approach more complete in terms of cosmological constraints. We anticipate that the future and better data can provide tighter constraints on the new prescriptions of the HOD model.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it