Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precise and accurate mass calibration is required to exploit galaxy clusters as astrophysical and cosmological probes in the Euclid era. Systematic errors in lensing signals by galaxy clusters can be empirically estimated by comparing different surveys with independent and uncorrelated systematics. To assess the robustness of the lensing results to systematic errors, we carried out end-to-end tests across different data sets. We performed a unified analysis at the catalogue level by leveraging the Euclid combined cluster and weak-lensing pipeline (COMB-CL). Notably, COMB-CL will measure weak lensing cluster masses for the Euclid Survey. Heterogeneous data sets from five recent, independent lensing surveys (CHFTLenS, DES SV1, HSC-SSP S16a, KiDS DR4, and RCSLenS), which exploited different shear and photometric redshift estimation algorithms, were analysed with a consistent pipeline under the same model assumptions. We performed a comparison of the amplitude of the reduced excess surface density and of the mass estimates using lenses from the Planck PSZ2 and SDSS redMaPPer cluster samples. Mass estimates agree with the results in the literature collected in the LC2 catalogues. Mass accuracy was further investigated considering the AMICO-detected clusters in the HSC-SSP XXL-North field. The consistency of the data sets was tested using our unified analysis framework. We found agreement between independent surveys at the level of systematic noise in Stage-III surveys or precursors. This indicates successful control over systematics. If this control continues into Stage IV, Euclid will be able to measure the weak lensing masses of around 13 000 (considering shot noise only) or 3000 (noise from shape and large-scale-structure) massive clusters with a signal-to-noise ratio greater than three.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.584 | 0.447 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".