Comparing Compressed and Full-Modeling analyses with FOLPS: implications for DESI 2024 and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) will provide unprecedented information about the large-scale structure of our Universe. In this work, we study the robustness of the theoretical modelling of the power spectrum of Folps, a novel effective field theory-based package for evaluating the redshift space power spectrum in the presence of massive neutrinos. We perform this validation by fitting the AbacusSummit high-accuracy N-body simulations for Luminous Red Galaxies, Emission Line Galaxies and Quasar tracers, calibrated to describe DESI observations. We quantify the potential systematic error budget of Folps finding that the modelling errors are fully sub-dominant for the DESI statistical precision within the studied range of scales. Additionally, we study two complementary approaches to fit and analyse the power spectrum data, one based on direct Full-Modelling fits and the other on the ShapeFit compression variables, both resulting in very good agreement in precision and accuracy. In each of these approaches, we study a set of potential systematic errors induced by several assumptions, such as the choice of template cosmology, the effect of prior choice in the nuisance parameters of the model, or the range of scales used in the analysis. Furthermore, we show how opening up the parameter space beyond the vanilla ΛCDM model affects the DESI observables. These studies include the addition of massive neutrinos, spatial curvature, and dark energy equation of state. We also examine how relaxing the usual Cosmic Microwave Background and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis priors on the primordial spectral index and the baryonic matter abundance, respectively, impacts the inference on the rest of the parameters of interest. This paper pathways towards performing a robust and reliable analysis of the shape of the power spectrum of DESI galaxy and quasar clustering using Folps.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".