Euclid preparation. Cosmology Likelihood for Observables in Euclid (CLOE). 4: Validation and Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Euclid satellite will provide data on the clustering of galaxies and on the distortion of their measured shapes, which can be used to constrain and test the cosmological model. However, the increase in precision places strong requirements on the accuracy of the theoretical modelling for the observables and of the full analysis pipeline. In this paper, we investigate the accuracy of the calculations performed by the Cosmology Likelihood for Observables in Euclid (CLOE), a software able to handle both the modelling of observables and their fit against observational data for both the photometric and spectroscopic surveys of Euclid, by comparing the output of CLOE with external codes used as benchmark. We perform such a comparison on the quantities entering the calculations of the observables, as well as on the final outputs of these calculations. Our results highlight the high accuracy of CLOE when comparing its calculation against external codes for Euclid observables on an extended range of operative cases. In particular, all the summary statistics of interest always differ less than $0.1\,σ$ from the chosen benchmark, and CLOE predictions are statistically compatible with simulated data obtained from benchmark codes. The same holds for the comparison of correlation function in configuration space for spectroscopic and photometric observables.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.069 |
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".