Forward modeling fluctuations in the DESI LRGs target sample using image simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We use the forward modeling pipeline, Obiwan, to study the imaging systematics of the Luminous Red Galaxies (LRGs) targeted by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI). Imaging systematics refers to the false fluctuation of galaxy densities due to varying observing conditions and astrophysical foregrounds corresponding to the imaging surveys from which DESI LRG target galaxies are selected. We update the Obiwan pipeline, which we previously developed to simulate the optical images used to target DESI data, to further simulate WISE images in the infrared. This addition allows simulating the DESI LRGs sample, which utilizes WISE data in the target selection. Deep DESI imaging data combined with a method to account for biases in their shapes is used to define a truth sample of potential LRG targets. We inject these data evenly throughout the DESI Legacy Imaging Survey footprint at declinations between -30 and 32.375 degrees. We simulate a total of 15 million galaxies to obtain a simulated LRG sample (Obiwan LRGs) that predicts the variations in target density due to imaging properties. We find that the simulations predict the trends with depth observed in the data, including how they depend on the intrinsic brightness of the galaxies. We observe that faint LRGs are the main contributing source of the imaging systematics trend induced by depth. We also find significant trends in the data against Galactic extinction that are not predicted by Obiwan. These trends depend strongly on the particular map of Galactic extinction chosen to test against, implying systematic contamination in the Galactic extinction maps is a likely root cause (e.g., Cosmic-Infrared Background, dust temperature correction). We additionally observe a morphological change of the DESI LRGs population evidenced by a correlation between OII emission line average intensity and the size of the z-band PSF. This effect most likely results from uncertainties in background subtraction. The detailed findings we present should be used to guide any observational systematics mitigation treatment for the clustering of the DESI LRGs 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".