Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Galaxy mock catalogs for BAO analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The calibration and validation of scientific analysis in simulations is a fundamental tool to ensure unbiased and robust results in observational cosmology. In particular, mock galaxy catalogs are a crucial resource to achieve these goals in the measurement of baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) in the clustering of galaxies. Here we present a set of 1952 galaxy mock catalogs designed to mimic the Dark Energy Survey Year 3 BAO sample over its full photometric redshift range 0.6 < zphoto < 1.1. The mocks are based upon 488 ICE-COLA fastN-body simulations of full-sky light cones and were created by populating halos with galaxies, using a hybrid halo occupation distribution – halo abundance matching model. This model has ten free parameters, which were determined, for the first time, using an automatic likelihood minimization procedure. We also introduced a novel technique to assign photometric redshift for simulated galaxies, following a two-dimensional probability distribution with VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey data. The calibration was designed to match the observed abundance of galaxies as a function of photometric redshift, the distribution of photometric redshift errors, and the clustering amplitude on scales smaller than those used for BAO measurements. An exhaustive analysis was done to ensure that the mocks reproduce the input properties. Finally, mocks were tested by comparing the angular correlation functionw(θ), angular power spectrumCℓ, and projected clusteringξp(r⊥) to theoretical predictions and data. The impact of volume replication in the estimate of the covariance is also investigated. The success in accurately reproducing the photometric redshift uncertainties and the galaxy clustering as a function of redshift render this mock creation pipeline as a benchmark for future analyses of photometric galaxy surveys.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".