The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS): PCA-based automatic cleaning and reconstruction of survey spectra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying spurious reduction artefacts in galaxy spectra is a challenge for large surveys. We present an algorithm for identifying and repairing residual spurious features in sky-subtracted galaxy spectra with application to the VIPERS survey. The algorithm uses principal component analysis (PCA) applied to the galaxy spectra in the observed frame to identify sky line residuals imprinted at characteristic wavelengths. We further model the galaxy spectra in the rest-frame using PCA to estimate the most probable continuum in the corrupted spectral regions, which are then repaired. We apply the method to 90,000 spectra from the VIPERS survey and compare the results with a subset where careful editing was performed by hand. We find that the automatic technique does an extremely good job in reproducing the time-consuming manual cleaning and does it in a uniform and objective manner across a large data sample. The mask data products produced in this work are released together with the VIPERS second public data release (PDR-2).
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".