HOD-dependent systematics for luminous red galaxies in the DESI 2024 BAO analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we present the estimation of systematics related to the halo occupation distribution (HOD) modeling in the baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) distance measurement of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) 2024 analysis. This paper focuses on the study of HOD systematics for luminous red galaxies (LRG). We consider three different HOD models for LRGs, including the base 5-parameter vanilla model and two extensions to it, that we refer to as baseline and extended models. The baseline model is described by the 5 vanilla HOD parameters, an incompleteness factor and a velocity bias parameter, whereas the extended one also includes a galaxy assembly bias and a satellite profile parameter. We utilize the 25 dark matter simulations available in the AbacusSummit simulation suite at z=0.8 and generate mock catalogs for our different HOD models. To test the impact of the HOD modeling in the position of the BAO peak, we run BAO fits for all these sets of simulations and compare the best-fit BAO-scaling parameters α iso and α AP between every pair of HOD models. We do this for both Fourier and configuration spaces independently, using post-reconstruction measurements. We find a 3.3σ detection of HOD systematic for α AP in configuration space with an amplitude of 0.19%. For the other cases, we did not find a 3σ detection, and we decided to compute a conservative estimation of the systematic using the ensemble of shifts between all pairs of HOD models. By doing this, we quote a systematic with an amplitude of 0.07% in α iso for both Fourier and configuration spaces; and of 0.09% in α AP for Fourier space.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".