Characterizing the target selection pipeline for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument Bright Galaxy Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We present the steps taken to produce a reliable and complete input galaxy catalogue for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Bright Galaxy Survey (BGS) using the photometric Legacy Survey DR8 DECam. We analyse some of the main issues faced in the selection of targets for the DESI BGS, such as star–galaxy separation, contamination by fragmented stars and bright galaxies. Our pipeline utilizes a new way to select BGS galaxies using Gaia photometry and we implement geometrical and photometric masks that reduce the number of spurious objects. The resulting catalogue is cross-matched with the Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey to assess the completeness of the galaxy catalogue and the performance of the target selection. We also validate the clustering of the sources in our BGS catalogue by comparing with mock catalogues and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) data. Finally, the robustness of the BGS selection criteria is assessed by quantifying the dependence of the target galaxy density on imaging and other properties. The largest systematic correlation we find is a 7 per cent suppression of the target density in regions of high stellar density.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
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".