Analytical and EZmock covariance validation for the DESI 2024 results
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 The estimation of uncertainties in cosmological parameters is an important challenge in Large-Scale-Structure (LSS) analyses. For standard analyses such as Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) and Full-Shape two approaches are usually considered. First: analytical estimates of the covariance matrix use Gaussian approximations and (nonlinear) clustering measurements to estimate the matrix, which allows a relatively fast and computationally cheap way to generate matrices that adapt to an arbitrary clustering measurement. On the other hand, sample covariances are an empirical estimate of the matrix based on an ensemble of clustering measurements from fast and approximate simulations. While more computationally expensive due to the large amount of simulations and volume required, these allow us to take into account systematics that are impossible to model analytically. In this work we compare these two approaches in order to enable DESI's key analyses. We find that the configuration space analytical estimate performs satisfactorily in BAO analyses and its flexibility in terms of input clustering makes it the fiducial choice for DESI's 2024 BAO analysis. On the contrary, the analytical computation of the covariance matrix in Fourier space does not reproduce the expected measurements in terms of Full-Shape analyses, which motivates the use of a corrected mock covariance for DESI's 2024 Full Shape analysis.
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