The DECam Ecliptic Exploration Project (DEEP). III. Survey Characterization and Simulation Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a detailed study of the observational biases of the DECam Ecliptic Exploration Project’s B1 data release and survey simulation software that enables direct statistical comparisons between models and our data. We inject a synthetic population of objects into the images, and then subsequently recover them in the same processing as our real detections. This enables us to characterize the survey’s completeness as a function of apparent magnitudes and on-sky rates of motion. We study the statistically optimal functional form for the magnitude, and develop a methodology that can estimate the magnitude and rate efficiencies for all survey’s pointing groups simultaneously. We have determined that our peak completeness is on average 80% in each pointing group, and our magnitude drops to 25% of this value at m 25 = 26.22. We describe the freely available survey simulation software and its methodology. We conclude by using it to infer that our effective search area for objects at 40 au is 14.8 deg2, and that our lack of dynamically cold distant objects means that there at most 8 × 103 objects with 60 < a < 80 au and absolute magnitudes H ≤ 8.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".