The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: N-body mock challenge for the eBOSS emission line galaxy sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Cosmological growth can be measured in the redshift space clustering of galaxies targeted by spectroscopic surveys. Accurate prediction of clustering of galaxies will require understanding galaxy physics, which is a very hard and highly non-linear problem. Approximate models of redshift space distortion (RSD) take a perturbative approach to solve the evolution of dark matter and galaxies in the universe. In this paper, we focus on extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic (eBOSS) emission line galaxies (ELGs) that live in intermediate mass haloes. We create a series of mock catalogues using haloes from the Multidark and outer rim dark matter only N-body simulations. Our mock catalogues include various effects inspired by baryonic physics such as assembly bias and the characteristics of satellite galaxies kinematics, dynamics, and statistics deviating from dark matter particles. We analyse these mocks using the TNS RSD model in Fourier space and the convolution Lagrangian perturbation theory (CLPT) in configuration space. We conclude that these two RSD models provide an unbiased measurement of RSD within the statistical error of our mocks. We obtain the conservative theoretical systematic uncertainty of $3.3{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$, $1.8{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$, and $1.5{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ in fσ8, α∥, and α⊥, respectively, for the TNS and CLPT models. We note that the estimated theoretical systematic error is an order of magnitude smaller than the statistical error of the eBOSS ELG sample and hence are negligible for the purpose of the current eBOSS ELG analysis.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".