The DESI One-Percent Survey: exploring a generalized SHAM for multiple tracers with the UNIT simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We perform SubHalo Abundance Matching (SHAM) studies on UNIT simulations with {σ, Vceil, vsmear}-SHAM and {σ, Vceil, fsat}-SHAM. They are designed to reproduce the clustering on 5–30 $\, {\, h^{-1}\, {\rm Mpc}}$ of luminous red galaxies (LRGs), emission-line galaxies (ELGs), and quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) at 0.4 < z < 3.5 from DESI (Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument) One Percent Survey. Vceil is the incompleteness of the massive host (sub)haloes and is the key to the generalized SHAM. vsmear models the clustering effect of redshift uncertainties, providing measurements consistent with those from repeat observations. A free satellite fraction fsat is necessary to reproduce the clustering of ELGs. We find ELGs present a more complex galaxy–halo mass relation than LRGs reflected in their weak constraints on σ. LRGs, QSOs, and ELGs show increasing Vceil values, corresponding to the massive galaxy incompleteness of LRGs, the quenched star formation of ELGs and the quenched black hole accretion of QSOs. For LRGs, a Gaussian vsmear presents a better profile for subsamples at redshift bins than a Lorentzian profile used for other tracers. The impact of the statistical redshift uncertainty on ELG clustering is negligible. The best-fitting satellite fraction for DESI ELGs is around 4 per cent, lower than previous estimations for ELGs. The mean halo mass log10(〈Mvir〉) in ${{\, h^{-1}\, \mbox{M}_\odot }}{}$ for LRGs, ELGs, and QSOs are 13.16 ± 0.01, 11.90 ± 0.06, and 12.66 ± 0.45, respectively. Our generalized SHAM algorithms facilitate the production of multitracer galaxy mocks for cosmological tests.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".