MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388911741 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832

Survey Operations for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

2023· article· en· W4388911741 on OpenAlexaff
Edward F. Schlafly, D. Kirkby, David J. Schlegel, Adam D. Myers, Anand Raichoor, Kyle Dawson, Carlos Allende Prieto, S. Bailey, S. BenZvi, J. R. Bermejo-Climent, D. Brooks, Axel de la Macorra, Arjun Dey, Peter Doel, K. Fanning, Andreu Font-Ribera, J. E. Forero-Romero, J. García-Bellido, Satya Gontcho A Gontcho, J. Guy, ChangHoon Hahn, Klaus Honscheid, Mustapha Ishak, S. Juneau, R. Kehoe, Theodore Kisner, Martin Landriau, Dustin Lang, J. Lasker, M. E. Levi, Christophe Magneville, Christopher J. Manser, Aaron Meisner, R. Miquel, John Moustakas, Jeffrey A. Newman, Jundan Nie, N. Palanque‐Delabrouille, Will J. Percival, Claire Poppett, Constance M. Rockosi, Ashley J. Ross, Graziano Rossi, G. Tarlé, Benjamin A. Weaver, Christophe Yèche, Rongpu Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersDivision of Astronomical SciencesScience and Technology Facilities CouncilOffice of ScienceCommissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies AlternativesMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónNational Science FoundationConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaHigh Energy PhysicsGordon and Betty Moore FoundationU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsDark energySkyGalaxyStarsCompleteness (order theory)Field (mathematics)AstrophysicsAstronomyCosmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) survey is a spectroscopic survey of tens of millions of galaxies at 0 < z < 3.5 covering 14,000 sq. deg. of the sky. In its first 1.1 yr of survey operations, it has observed more than 14 million galaxies and 4 million stars. We describe the processes that govern DESI’s observations of the 15,000 fields composing the survey. This includes the planning of each night’s observations in the afternoon; automatic selection of fields to observe during the night; real-time assessment of field completeness on the basis of observing conditions during each exposure; reduction, redshifting, and quality assurance of each field of targets in the morning following observation; and updates to the list of future targets to observe on the basis of these results. We also compare the performance of the survey with historical expectations and find good agreement. Simulations of the weather and of DESI observations using the real field-selection algorithm show good agreement with the actual observations. After accounting for major unplanned shutdowns, the dark time survey is progressing about 7% faster than forecast, which is good agreement given approximations made in the simulations.

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)0.001
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations146
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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