Validating the galaxy and quasar catalog-level blinding scheme for the DESI 2024 analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the era of precision cosmology, ensuring the integrity of data analysis through blinding techniques is paramount — a challenge particularly relevant for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI). DESI represents a monumental effort to map the cosmic web, with the goal to measure the redshifts of tens of millions of galaxies and quasars. Given the data volume and the impact of the findings, the potential for confirmation bias poses a significant challenge. To address this, we implement and validate a comprehensive blind analysis strategy for DESI Data Release 1 (DR1), tailored to the specific observables DESI is most sensitive to: Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations (BAO), Redshift-Space Distortion (RSD) and primordial non-Gaussianities (PNG). We carry out the blinding at the catalog level, implementing shifts in the redshifts of the observed galaxies to blind for BAO and RSD signals and weights to blind for PNG through a scale-dependent bias. We validate the blinding technique on mocks as well as on data by applying a second blinding layer to perform a series of sanity checks; the latter allows probing complexities in real data not captured in mocks. We find that the blinding strategy alters the data vector in a controlled way, and the BAO and RSD analysis choices are robust to blinding. The successful validation of the blinding strategy paves the way for the unblinded DESI DR1 analysis, alongside future blind analyses with DESI and other surveys.
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".