Galaxy clustering, photometric redshifts and diagnosis of systematics in the DES Science Verification data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the clustering of galaxies detected at i < 22.5 in the Science Verification observations of the Dark Energy Survey (DES). Two-point correlation functions are measured using 2.3 × 106 galaxies over a contiguous 116 deg2 region in five bins of photometric redshift width Δz = 0.2 in the range 0.2 < z < 1.2. The impact of photometric redshift errors is assessed by comparing results using a template-based photo-z algorithm (BPZ) to a machine-learning algorithm (TPZ). A companion paper presents maps of several observational variables (e.g. seeing, sky brightness) which could modulate the galaxy density. Here we characterize and mitigate systematic errors on the measured clustering which arise from these observational variables, in addition to others such as Galactic dust and stellar contamination. After correcting for systematic effects, we measure galaxy bias over a broad range of linear scales relative to mass clustering predicted from the Planck Λ cold dark matter model, finding agreement with the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS) measurements with χ2 of 4.0 (8.7) with 5 degrees of freedom for the TPZ (BPZ) redshifts. We test a ‘linear bias’ model, in which the galaxy clustering is a fixed multiple of the predicted non-linear dark matter clustering. The precision of the data allows us to determine that the linear bias model describes the observed galaxy clustering to 2.5 per cent accuracy down to scales at least 4–10 times smaller than those on which linear theory is expected to be sufficient.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".