Clustering-based redshift estimation: application to VIPERS/CFHTLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore the accuracy of the clustering-based redshift estimation proposed by Ménard et al. when applied to VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS) and Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS) real data. This method enables us to reconstruct redshift distributions from measurement of the angular clustering of objects using a set of secure spectroscopic redshifts. We use state-of-the-art spectroscopic measurements with iAB < 22.5 from the VIPERS as reference population to infer the redshift distribution of galaxies from the CFHTLS T0007 release. VIPERS provides a nearly representative sample to a flux limit of iAB < 22.5 at a redshift of >0.5 which allows us to test the accuracy of the clustering-based redshift distributions. We show that this method enables us to reproduce the true mean colour–redshift relation when both populations have the same magnitude limit. We also show that this technique allows the inference of redshift distributions for a population fainter than the reference and we give an estimate of the colour–redshift mapping in this case. This last point is of great interest for future large-redshift surveys which require a complete faint spectroscopic sample.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Clustering-based redshift estimation applied to galaxy surveys; an astronomy method used to answer an astronomy question.
The work tests a redshift-estimation technique for galaxy surveys rather than studying research practice.
Astronomy method for clustering-based redshift estimation; domain astrophysics technique.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".