Maximizing survey volume for large-area multi-epoch surveys with Voronoi tessellation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The survey volume of a proper motion-limited sample is typically much smaller than a magnitude-limited sample. This is because of the noisy astrometric measurements from detectors that are not dedicated for astrometric missions. In order to apply an empirical completeness correction, existing works limit the survey depth to the shallower parts of the sky that hamper the maximum potential of a survey. The number of epoch of measurement is a discrete quantity that cannot be interpolated across the projected plane of observation, so that the survey properties change in discrete steps across the sky. This work proposes a method to dissect the survey into small parts with Voronoi tessellation using candidate objects as generating points such that each part defines a ‘mini-survey’ that has its own properties. Coupling with a maximum volume density estimator, the new method is demonstrated to be unbiased and recovered ∼20 per cent more objects than the existing method in a mock catalogue of a white dwarf-only solar neighbourhood with Pan–STARRS 1-like characteristics. Towards the end of this work, we demonstrate one way to increase the tessellation resolution with artificial generating points, which would be useful for analysis of rare objects with small number counts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".