MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378471793 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accff8

The DESI Bright Galaxy Survey: Final Target Selection, Design, and Validation

2023· article· en· W4378471793 on OpenAlexaff
ChangHoon Hahn, Michael J. Wilson, Omar Ruiz-Macias, Shaun Cole, David H. Weinberg, John Moustakas, Jeremy L. Tinker, A. G. Smith, Risa H. Wechsler, S. P. Ahlen, Shadab Alam, S. Bailey, D. Brooks, Andrew P. Cooper, T. M. Davis, Kyle Dawson, Arjun Dey, Biprateep Dey, Sarah Eftekharzadeh, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Kevin Fanning, J. E. Forero-Romero, Carlos S. Frenk, E. Gaztañaga, Satya Gontcho A Gontcho, J. Guy, K. Honscheid, Mustapha Ishak, S. Juneau, R. Kehoe, Theodore Kisner, Ting-Wen Lan, Martin Landriau, L. Le Guillou, M. E. Levi, Christophe Magneville, Aaron Meisner, Adam D. Myers, Jundan Nie, P. Norberg, N. Palanque‐Delabrouille, Will J. Percival, Claire Poppett, Francisco Prada, Anand Raichoor, Ashley J. Ross, Sasha Gaines, Christoph Saulder, Edward F. Schlafly, David J. Schlegel, D. Sierra-Porta, G. Tarlé, Benjamin A. Weaver, Christophe Yèche, Pauline Zarrouk, Rongpu Zhou, Zhimin Zhou, Hu Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryHigh Energy PhysicsDivision of Astronomical SciencesScience and Technology Facilities CouncilJet Propulsion LaboratoryMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónCommissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies AlternativesChinese Academy of SciencesOffice of ScienceNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Department of EnergyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyGordon and Betty Moore FoundationConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsDark energyRedshiftGalaxyAstrophysicsObservatoryAstronomyTelescopeCosmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over the next 5 yr, the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) will use 10 spectrographs with 5000 fibers on the 4 m Mayall Telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory to conduct the first Stage IV dark energy galaxy survey. At z < 0.6, the DESI Bright Galaxy Survey (BGS) will produce the most detailed map of the universe during the dark-energy-dominated epoch with redshifts of >10 million galaxies spanning 14,000 deg 2 . In this work, we present and validate the final BGS target selection and survey design. From the Legacy Surveys, BGS will target an r < 19.5 mag limited sample (BGS Bright), a fainter 19.5 < r < 20.175 color-selected sample (BGS Faint), and a smaller low- z quasar sample. BGS will observe these targets using exposure times scaled to achieve homogeneous completeness and cover the footprint three times. We use observations from the Survey Validation programs conducted prior to the main survey along with simulations to show that BGS can complete its strategy and make optimal use of “bright” time. BGS targets have stellar contamination <1%, and their densities do not depend strongly on imaging properties. BGS Bright will achieve >80% fiber assignment efficiency. Finally, BGS Bright and BGS Faint will achieve >95% redshift success over any observing condition. BGS meets the requirements for an extensive range of scientific applications. BGS will yield the most precise baryon acoustic oscillation and redshift-space distortion measurements at z < 0.4. It presents opportunities for new methods that require highly complete and dense samples (e.g., N -point statistics, multitracers). BGS further provides a powerful tool to study galaxy populations and the relations between galaxies and dark matter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations238
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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