Target Selection and Validation of DESI Luminous Red Galaxies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) is carrying out a five-year survey that aims to measure the redshifts of tens of millions of galaxies and quasars, including 8 million luminous red galaxies (LRGs) in the redshift range 0.4 < z ≲ 1.0. Here we present the selection of the DESI LRG sample and assess its spectroscopic performance using data from Survey Validation (SV) and the first two months of the Main Survey. The DESI LRG sample, selected using g , r , z , and W 1 photometry from the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys, is highly robust against imaging systematics. The sample has a target density of 605 deg −2 and a comoving number density of 5 × 10 −4 h 3 Mpc −3 in 0.4 < z < 0.8; this is a significantly higher density than previous LRG surveys (such as SDSS, BOSS, and eBOSS) while also extending to z ∼ 1. After applying a bright star veto mask developed for the sample, 98.9% of the observed LRG targets yield confident redshifts (with a catastrophic failure rate of 0.2% in the confident redshifts), and only 0.5% of the LRG targets are stellar contamination. The LRG redshift efficiency varies with source brightness and effective exposure time, and we present a simple model that accurately characterizes this dependence. In the appendices, we describe the extended LRG samples observed during SV.
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.
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 it