Cosmology Likelihood for Observables in \Euclid (CLOE). 1. Theoretical recipe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the statistical precision of cosmological measurements increases, the accuracy of the theoretical description of these measurements needs to increase correspondingly in order to infer the underlying cosmology that governs the Universe. To this end, we have created the Cosmology Likelihood for Observables in Euclid (CLOE), which is a novel cosmological parameter inference pipeline developed within the Euclid Consortium to translate measurements and covariances into cosmological parameter constraints. In this first in a series of six papers, we describe the theoretical recipe of this code for the Euclid primary probes. These probes are composed of the photometric 3x2pt observables of cosmic shear, galaxy-galaxy lensing, and galaxy clustering, along with spectroscopic galaxy clustering. We provide this description in both Fourier and configuration space for standard and extended summary statistics, including the wide range of systematic uncertainties that affect them. This includes systematic uncertainties such as intrinsic galaxy alignments, baryonic feedback, photometric and spectroscopic redshift uncertainties, shear calibration uncertainties, sample impurities, photometric and spectroscopic galaxy biases, as well as magnification bias. The theoretical descriptions are further able to accommodate both Gaussian and non-Gaussian likelihoods and extended cosmologies with non-zero curvature, massive neutrinos, evolving dark energy, and simple forms of modified gravity. These theoretical descriptions that underpin CLOE will form a crucial component in revealing the true nature of the Universe with next-generation cosmological surveys such as 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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.009 |
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".