MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292421593 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acacfc

The DESI Survey Validation: Results from Visual Inspection of the Quasar Survey Spectra

2023· article· en· W4292421593 on OpenAlexaff
D. M. Alexander, T. M. Davis, E. Chaussidon, Victoria A. Fawcett, Alma X. González‐Morales, Ting-Wen Lan, Christophe Yèche, S. P. Ahlen, J. Aguilar, E. Armengaud, S. Bailey, D. Brooks, Rebecca Canning, Anthony Carr, Solène Chabanier, Marie-Claude Cousinou, Kyle Dawson, Axel de la Macorra, Arjun Dey, Biprateep Dey, G. Dhungana, A. C. Edge, S. Eftekharzadeh, K. Fanning, James R. Farr, Andreu Font-Ribera, J. García-Bellido, Lehman H. Garrison, E. Gaztañaga, Satya Gontcho A Gontcho, C. Gordon, Stefany Guadalupe Medellin Gonzalez, J. Guy, H. K. Herrera-Alcantar, Linhua Jiang, S. Juneau, Naim Göksel Karaçaylı, R. Kehoe, Theodore Kisner, András Kovács, Martin Landriau, M. E. Levi, C. Magneville, Aaron Meisner, Mar Mezcua, R. Miquel, Paulo Montero-Camacho, John Moustakas, A. Muñoz-Gutiérrez, Adam D. Myers, S. Nadathur, L. Napolitano, Jundan Nie, N. Palanque‐Delabrouille, Zhiwei Pan, Will J. Percival, Ignasi Pérez-Ràfols, Claire Poppett, Francisco Prada, C. Ramírez-Pérez, C. Ravoux, D. J. Rosario, M. Schubnell, G. Tarlé, Michael Walther, Benjamin J. Weiner, Samantha Youles, Zhimin Zhou, Hu Zou, Siwei Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersHigh Energy PhysicsDivision of Astronomical SciencesScience and Technology Facilities CouncilInstitute for Information Industry, Ministry of Science and Technology, TaiwanOffice of ScienceCommissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies AlternativesNational Taiwan UniversityMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónNational Science FoundationConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaNational Energy Research Scientific Computing CenterGordon and Betty Moore FoundationU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsQuasarPhysicsRedshiftGalaxyAstrophysicsPipeline (software)Spectral lineAstronomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A key component of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) survey validation (SV) is a detailed visual inspection (VI) of the optical spectroscopic data to quantify key survey metrics. In this paper we present results from VI of the quasar survey using deep coadded SV spectra. We show that the majority (≈70%) of the main-survey targets are spectroscopically confirmed as quasars, with ≈16% galaxies, ≈6% stars, and ≈8% low-quality spectra lacking reliable features. A nonnegligible fraction of the quasars are misidentified by the standard spectroscopic pipeline, but we show that the majority can be recovered using post-pipeline “afterburner” quasar-identification approaches. We combine these “afterburners” with our standard pipeline to create a modified pipeline to increase the overall quasar yield. At the depth of the main DESI survey, both pipelines achieve a good-redshift purity (reliable redshifts measured within 3000 km s −1 ) of ≈99%; however, the modified pipeline recovers ≈94% of the visually inspected quasars, as compared to ≈86% from the standard pipeline. We demonstrate that both pipelines achieve a median redshift precision and accuracy of ≈100 km s −1 and ≈70 km s −1 , respectively. We constructed composite spectra to investigate why some quasars are missed by the standard pipeline and find that they are more host-galaxy dominated (i.e., distant analogs of “Seyfert galaxies”) and/or more dust reddened than the standard-pipeline quasars. We also show example spectra to demonstrate the overall diversity of the DESI quasar sample and provide strong-lensing candidates where two targets contribute to a single spectrum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207