MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: analysis of potential systematics

2012· article· en· W2142145978 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ashley J. Ross, Will J. Percival, Ariel G. Sánchez, Lado Samushia, Shirley Ho, Eyal Kazin, Marc Manera, Beth Reid, Martin White, Rita Tojeiro, Cameron K. McBride, Xiaoying Xu, David A. Wake, Michael A. Strauss, Francesco Montesano, Molly E. C. Swanson, S. Bailey, A. Bolton, Antonio D. Montero-Dorta, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Hong Guo, J.–Ch. Hamilton, Robert C. Nichol, Nikhil Padmanabhan, Francisco Prada, David J. Schlegel, M. Vargas-Magaña, Idit Zehavi, Michael R. Blanton, Dmitry Bizyaev, H. Brewington, Antonio J. Cuesta, Elena Malanushenko, Viktor Malanushenko, Daniel Oravetz, John K. Parejko, Kaike Pan, Donald P. Schneider, Alaina Shelden, A. Simmons, Stephanie A. Snedden, Gong‐Bo Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryLeverhulme TrustYork UniversityOffice of ScienceJohns Hopkins UniversityScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCarnegie Mellon UniversityCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityHarvard UniversityOhio State UniversityNational Science FoundationUniversity of WashingtonAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNew Mexico State UniversityUniversity of PortsmouthVanderbilt UniversityYale UniversityPrinceton UniversityBrookhaven National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyRedshiftCorrelation function (quantum field theory)Stellar massSurface brightnessBaryonAstronomyStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyse the density field of galaxies observed by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) included in the SDSS Data Release Nine (DR9). DR9 includes spectroscopic redshifts for over 400 000 galaxies spread over a footprint of 3275 deg2. We identify, characterize and mitigate the impact of sources of systematic uncertainty on large-scale clustering measurements, both for angular moments of the redshift-space correlation function, ξℓ(s), and the spherically averaged power spectrum, P(k), in order to ensure that robust cosmological constraints will be obtained from these data. A correlation between the projected density of stars and the higher redshift (0.43 < z < 0.7) galaxy sample (the approximately constant stellar mass threshold ‘CMASS’ sample) due to imaging systematics imparts a systematic error that is larger than the statistical error of the clustering measurements at scales s > 120 h−1 Mpc or k < 0.01 h Mpc−1. We find that these errors can be ameliorated by weighting galaxies based on their surface brightness and the local stellar density. The clustering of CMASS galaxies found in the Northern and Southern Galactic footprints of the survey generally agrees to within 2σ. We use mock galaxy catalogues that simulate the CMASS selection function to determine that randomly selecting galaxy redshifts in order to simulate the radial selection function of a random sample imparts the least systematic error on ξℓ(s) measurements and that this systematic error is negligible for the spherically averaged correlation function, ξ0. We find a peak in ξ0 at s∼ 200 h−1 Mpc, with a corresponding feature with period ∼0.03 h Mpc−1 in P(k), and find features at least as strong in 4.8 per cent of the mock galaxy catalogues, concluding this feature is likely to be a consequence of cosmic variance. The methods we recommend for the calculation of clustering measurements using the CMASS sample are adopted in companion papers that locate the position of the baryon acoustic oscillation feature, constrain cosmological models using the full shape of ξ0 and measure the rate of structure growth.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations282
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207