Target Selection and Sample Characterization for the DESI LOW-Z Secondary Target Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We introduce the DESI LOW- Z Secondary Target Survey, which combines the wide-area capabilities of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) with an efficient, low-redshift target selection method. Our selection consists of a set of color and surface brightness cuts, combined with modern machine-learning methods, to target low-redshift dwarf galaxies ( z < 0.03) between 19 < r < 21 with high completeness. We employ a convolutional neural network (CNN) to select high-priority targets. The LOW- Z survey has already obtained over 22,000 redshifts of dwarf galaxies ( M * < 10 9 M ⊙ ), comparable to the number of dwarf galaxies discovered in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR8 and GAMA. As a spare fiber survey, LOW- Z currently receives fiber allocation for just ∼50% of its targets. However, we estimate that our selection is highly complete: for galaxies at z < 0.03 within our magnitude limits, we achieve better than 95% completeness with ∼1% efficiency using catalog-level photometric cuts. We also demonstrate that our CNN selections z < 0.03 galaxies from the photometric cuts subsample at least 10 times more efficiently while maintaining high completeness. The full 5 yr DESI program will expand the LOW- Z sample, densely mapping the low-redshift Universe, providing an unprecedented sample of dwarf galaxies, and providing critical information about how to pursue effective and efficient low-redshift 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".