Fiducial-cosmology-dependent systematics for the DESI 2024 BAO analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When measuring the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) scale from galaxy surveys, one typically assumes a fiducial cosmology when converting redshift measurements into comoving distances and also when defining input parameters for the reconstruction algorithm. A parameterised template for the model to be fitted is also created based on a (possibly different) fiducial cosmology. This model reliance can be considered a form of data compression, and the data is then analysed allowing that the true answer is different from the fiducial cosmology assumed. In this study, we evaluate the impact of the fiducial cosmology assumed in the BAO analysis of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) survey Data Release 1 (DR1) on the final measurements in DESI 2024 III. We utilise a suite of mock galaxy catalogues with survey realism that mirrors the DESI DR1 tracers: the bright galaxy sample (BGS), the luminous red galaxies (LRG), the emission line galaxies (ELG) and the quasars (QSO), spanning a redshift range from 0.1 to 2.1. We compare the four secondary AbacusSummit cosmologies against DESI's fiducial cosmology (Planck 2018). The secondary cosmologies explored include a lower cold dark matter density, a thawing dark energy universe, a higher number of effective species, and a lower amplitude of matter clustering. The mocks are processed through the BAO pipeline by consistently iterating the grid, template, and reconstruction reference cosmologies. We determine a conservative systematic contribution to the error of 0.1% for both the isotropic and anisotropic dilation parameters α iso and α AP . We then directly test the impact of the fiducial cosmology on DESI DR1 data.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".