Target Selection and Validation of DESI Quasars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) survey will measure large-scale structures using quasars as direct tracers of dark matter in the redshift range 0.9 < z < 2.1 and using Ly α forests in quasar spectra at z > 2.1. We present several methods to select candidate quasars for DESI, using input photometric imaging in three optical bands ( g , r , z ) from the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys and two infrared bands (W1, W2) from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer. These methods were extensively tested during the Survey Validation of DESI. In this paper, we report on the results obtained with the different methods and present the selection we optimized for the DESI main survey. The final quasar target selection is based on a random forest algorithm and selects quasars in the magnitude range of 16.5 < r < 23. Visual selection of ultra-deep observations indicates that the main selection consists of 71% quasars, 16% galaxies, 6% stars, and 7% inconclusive spectra. Using the spectra based on this selection, we build an automated quasar catalog that achieves a fraction of true QSOs higher than 99% for a nominal effective exposure time of ∼1000 s. With a 310 deg −2 target density, the main selection allows DESI to select more than 200 deg −2 quasars (including 60 deg −2 quasars with z > 2.1), exceeding the project requirements by 20%. The redshift distribution of the selected quasars is in excellent agreement with quasar luminosity function predictions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".