Redshift evolution and covariances for joint lensing and clustering studies with DESI Y1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Galaxy–galaxy lensing (GGL) and clustering measurements from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument Year 1 (DESI Y1) data set promise to yield unprecedented combined-probe tests of cosmology and the galaxy–halo connection. In such analyses, it is essential to identify and characterize all relevant statistical and systematic errors. We forecast the covariances of DESI Y1 GGL + clustering measurements and the systematic bias due to redshift evolution in the lens samples. Focusing on the projected clustering and GGL correlations, we compute a Gaussian analytical covariance, using a suite of N-body and lognormal simulations to characterize the effect of the survey footprint. Using the DESI one percent survey data, we measure the evolution of galaxy bias parameters for the DESI luminous red galaxy (LRG) and bright galaxy survey (BGS) samples. We find mild evolution in the LRGs in $0.4 < z < 0.8$, subdominant to the expected statistical errors. For BGS, we find less evolution for brighter absolute magnitude cuts, at the cost of reduced sample size. We find that for a redshift bin width $\Delta z = 0.1$, evolution effects on DESI Y1 GGL is negligible across all scales, all fiducial selection cuts, all fiducial redshift bins. Galaxy clustering is more sensitive to evolution due to the bias squared scaling. Nevertheless the redshift evolution effect is insignificant for clustering above the 1-halo scale of $0.1h^{-1}$ Mpc. For studies that wish to reliably access smaller scales, additional treatment of redshift evolution is likely needed. This study serves as a reference for GGL and clustering studies using the DESI Y1 sample.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".