The completed SDSS-IV extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: pairwise-inverse probability and angular correction for fibre collisions in clustering measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The completed extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (eBOSS) catalogues contain redshifts of 344 080 quasars at 0.8 < z < 2.2, 174 816 luminous red galaxies between 0.6 < z < 1.0, and 173 736 emission-line galaxies over 0.6 < z < 1.1 in order to constrain the expansion history of the Universe and the growth rate of structure through clustering measurements. Mechanical limitations of the fibre-fed spectrograph on the Sloan telescope prevent two fibres being placed closer than 62 arcsec in a single pass of the instrument. These ‘fibre collisions’ strongly correlate with the intrinsic clustering of targets and can bias measurements of the two-point correlation function resulting in a systematic error on the inferred values of the cosmological parameters. We combine the new techniques of pairwise-inverse probability and the angular upweighting (PIP+ANG) to correct the clustering measurements for the effect of fibre collisions. Using mock catalogues, we show that our corrections provide unbiased measurements, within data precision, of both the projected $\rm {\mathit{ w}_p}\left(\mathit{ r}_p\right)$ and the redshift-space multipole ξ(ℓ = 0, 2, 4)(s) correlation functions down to $0.1\, h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$, regardless of the tracer type. We apply the corrections to the eBOSS DR16 catalogues. We find that, on scales $s\gtrsim 20\, h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ for ξℓ, as used to make baryon acoustic oscillation and large-scale redshift-space distortion measurements, approximate methods such as nearest-neighbour upweighting are sufficiently accurate given the statistical errors of the data. Using the PIP method, for the first time for a spectroscopic program of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, we are able to successfully access the one-halo term in the clustering measurements down to $\sim 0.1\, h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ scales. Our results will therefore allow studies that use the small-scale clustering to strengthen the constraints on both cosmological parameters and the halo occupation distribution models.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".