MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084849659 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.04953

Euclid preparation. LXXXV. Toward a DR1 application of higher-order weak lensing statistics

2025· preprint· en· W7084849659 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Analysis and Transform Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaussianEstimatorWeak gravitational lensingMinkowski spaceFisher informationCosmologyProbability density functionInference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the second paper in the HOWLS (higher-order weak lensing statistics) series exploring the usage of non-Gaussian statistics for cosmology inference within Euclid. With respect to our first paper, we develop a full tomographic analysis based on realistic photometric redshifts that allows us to derive Fisher forecasts in the ($σ_8$, $w_0$) plane for a Euclid-like data release 1 (DR1) setup. We find that the five higher-order statistics (HOS) that satisfy the Gaussian likelihood assumption of the Fisher formalism (one-point probability distribution function, $\ell$1-norm, peak counts, Minkowski functionals, and Betti numbers) each outperform the shear two-point correlation functions by a factor of $2.5$ on the $w_0$ forecasts, with only marginal improvement when used in combination with two-point estimators, suggesting that every HOS is able to retrieve both the non-Gaussian and Gaussian information of the matter density field. The similar performance of the different estimators is explained by a homogeneous use of multi-scale and tomographic information, optimized to lower computational costs. These results hold for the three mass mapping techniques of the Euclid pipeline, aperture mass, Kaiser--Squires, and Kaiser--Squires plus, and they are unaffected by the application of realistic star masks. Finally, we explored the use of HOS with the Bernardeau--Nishimichi--Taruya (BNT) nulling scheme approach, finding promising results toward applying physical scale cuts to HOS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3620.308

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMathematical Analysis and Transform MethodsFrench-language works237,207