MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

3D-Matched-Filter galaxy cluster finder - I. Selection functions and CFHTLS Deep clusters

2010· article· en· W1790785440 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsches Elektronen-SynchrotronInstitut national des sciences de l'UniversCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsGalaxy clusterGalaxyCluster (spacecraft)RedshiftBrightest cluster galaxyLuminosityLuminosity function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an optimized galaxy cluster finder, 3D-Matched-Filter (3D-MF), which utilizes galaxy cluster radial profiles, luminosity functions and redshift information to detect galaxy clusters in optical surveys. This method is an improvement over other matched-filter methods, most notably through implementing redshift slicing of the data to significantly reduce line-of-sight projections and related false positives. We apply our method to the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS) Deep fields, finding ∼170 galaxy clusters deg−2 in the 0.2 ≤ z ≤ 1.0 redshift range. Future surveys such as LSST and JDEM can exploit 3D-MF’s automated methodology to produce complete and reliable galaxy cluster catalogues. We determine the reliability and accuracy of the statistical approach of our method through a thorough analysis of mock data from the Millennium Simulation. We detect clusters with 100 per cent completeness for M 200≥ 3.0 × 1014 M⊙, 88 per cent completeness for M 200≥ 1.0 × 1014 M⊙ and 72 per cent completeness well into the 1013 M⊙ cluster mass range. We show a 36 per cent multiple detection rate for cluster masses ≥1.5 × 1013 M⊙ and a 16 per cent false detection rate for galaxy clusters > rsim 5 × 1013 M⊙, reporting that for clusters with masses ≲5 × 1013 M⊙ false detections may increase up to ∼24 per cent. Utilizing these selection functions we conclude that our galaxy cluster catalogue is the most complete CFHTLS Deep cluster catalogue to date.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations63
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→