Anisotropic effective redshift and evolving clustering amplitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A typical galaxy survey geometry results in galaxy pairs of different separation and angle to the line-of-sight having different distributions in redshift and consequently a different effective redshift. However, clustering measurements are analysed assuming that the clustering is representative of that at a single effective redshift. We investigate the impact of variations in the galaxy-pair effective redshift on the large-scale clustering measured in galaxy surveys. We find that galaxy surveys spanning a large redshift range have different effective redshifts as a function of both pair separation and angle. Furthermore, when considering tracers whose clustering amplitude evolves strongly with redshift, this combination can result in an additional scale-dependent clustering anisotropy. We demonstrate the size of this effect on the eBOSS DR16 Quasar sample and show that, while the impact on monopole is negligible, neglecting this effect can result in a tilt of ∼ 4% and ∼40% in quadrupole and hexadecapole, respectively, on scales ∼1 h -1 Gpc. We discuss strategies to mitigate this effect when making measurements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".