Euclid preparation. Cosmology Likelihood for Observables in Euclid (CLOE). 6: Impact of systematic uncertainties on the cosmological analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracting cosmological information from the Euclid galaxy survey will require modelling numerous systematic effects during the inference process. This implies varying a large number of nuisance parameters, which have to be marginalised over before reporting the constraints on the cosmological parameters. This is a delicate process, especially with such a large parameter space, which could result in biased cosmological results. In this work, we study the impact of different choices for modelling systematic effects and prior distribution of nuisance parameters for the final Euclid Data Release, focusing on the 3$\times$2pt analysis for photometric probes and the galaxy power spectrum multipoles for the spectroscopic probes. We explore the effect of intrinsic alignments, linear galaxy bias, magnification bias, multiplicative cosmic shear bias and shifts in the redshift distribution for the photometric probes, as well as the purity of the spectroscopic sample. We find that intrinsic alignment modelling has the most severe impact with a bias up to $6\,σ$ on the Hubble constant $H_0$ if neglected, followed by mis-modelling of the redshift evolution of galaxy bias, yielding up to $1.5\,σ$ on the parameter $S_8\equivσ_8\sqrt{Ω_{\rm m} /0.3}$. Choosing a too optimistic prior for multiplicative bias can also result in biases of the order of $0.7\,σ$ on $S_8$. We also find that the precision on the estimate of the purity of the spectroscopic sample will be an important driver for the constraining power of the galaxy clustering full-shape analysis. These results will help prioritise efforts to improve the modelling and calibration of systematic effects in Euclid.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.199 | 0.150 |
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".