Production of Alternate Realizations of DESI Fiber Assignment for Unbiased Clustering Measurement in Data and Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical requirement of spectroscopic large scale structure analyses is correcting for selection of which galaxies to observe from an isotropic target list. This selection is often limited by the hardware used to perform the survey which will impose angular constraints of simultaneously observable targets, requiring multiple passes to observe all of them. In SDSS this manifested solely as the collision of physical fibers and plugs placed in plates. In DESI, there is the additional constraint of the robotic positioner which controls each fiber being limited to a finite patrol radius. A number of approximate methods have previously been proposed to correct the galaxy clustering statistics for these effects, but these generally fail on small scales. To accurately correct the clustering we need to upweight pairs of galaxies based on the inverse probability that those pairs would be observed (Bianchi & Percival 2017). This paper details an implementation of that method to correct the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) survey for incompleteness. To calculate the required probabilities, we need a set of alternate realizations of DESI where we vary the relative priority of otherwise identical targets. These realizations take the form of alternate Merged Target Ledgers (AMTL), the files that link DESI observations and targets. We present the method used to generate these alternate realizations and how they are tracked forward in time using the real observational record and hardware status, propagating the survey as though the alternate orderings had been adopted. We detail the first applications of this method to the DESI One-Percent Survey (SV3) and the DESI year 1 data. We include evaluations of the pipeline outputs, estimation of survey completeness from this and other methods, and validation of the method using mock galaxy catalogs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".