Forecasts and Statistical Insights for Line Intensity Mapping Cross-correlations: A Case Study with 21 cm × [C ii]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intensity mapping—the large-scale mapping of selected spectral lines without resolving individual sources—is quickly emerging as an efficient way to conduct large cosmological surveys. Multiple surveys covering a variety of lines (such as the hydrogen 21 cm hyperfine line, carbon-monoxide rotational lines, and [C ii] fine-structure lines, among others) are either observing or will soon be online, promising a panchromatic view of our Universe over a broad redshift range. With multiple lines potentially covering the same volume, cross-correlations have become an attractive prospect, both for probing the underlying astrophysics and for mitigating observational systematics. For example, cross-correlating 21 cm and [C ii] intensity maps during reionization could reveal the characteristic scale of ionized bubbles around the first galaxies, while simultaneously providing a convenient way to reduce independent foreground contaminants between the two surveys. However, many of the desirable properties of cross-correlations in principle emerge only under ideal conditions, such as infinite ensemble averages. In this paper, we construct an end-to-end pipeline for analyzing intensity mapping cross-correlations, enabling instrumental effects, foreground residuals, and analysis choices to be propagated through Monte Carlo simulations to a set of rigorous error properties, including error covariances, window functions, and full probability distributions for power-spectrum estimates. We use this framework to critically examine the applicability of simplifying assumptions such as the independence and Gaussianity of power-spectrum errors. As worked examples, we forecast the sensitivity of near-term and futuristic 21 cm × [C ii] cross-correlation measurements, providing recommendations for survey design.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".