MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416144668 · doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ae1c19

Enhancing Multiplet Alignment Measurements with Imaging

2025· article· en· W4416144668 on OpenAlexaff
Alexus Annika Kumwembe, C. Lamman, Daniel J. Eisenstein, J. Aguilar, S. P. Ahlen, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, T. Claybaugh, Andrei Cuceu, Axel de la Macorra, Biprateep Dey, P. Doel, Andreu Font-Ribera, J. E. Forero-Romero, E. Gaztañaga, Satya Gontcho A Gontcho, G. Gutiérrez, Mustapha Ishak, Jorge Jiménez, R. R. Joyce, R. Kehoe, Theodore Kisner, O. Lahav, Martin Landriau, Marc Manera, R. Miquel, S. Nadathur, N. Palanque‐Delabrouille, Ignasi Pérez-Ràfols, Francisco Prada, Graziano Rossi, E. Sánchez, David J. Schlegel, Hee‐Jong Seo, J. Silber, David Sprayberry, G. Tarlé, Benjamin A. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Notes of the AAS · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultipletMeasure (data warehouse)Orientation (vector space)GalaxyHyperspectral imagingField (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We demonstrate that measurements of the gravitational tidal field made with spectroscopic redshifts can be improved with information from imaging surveys. The average orientation of small groups of galaxies, or “multiplets” is correlated with large-scale structure and is used to measure the direction of tidal forces. Previously, multiplet intrinsic alignment has been measured in DESI using galaxies that have spectroscopic redshifts. The DESI Legacy Imaging catalog can be used to supplement multiplet catalogs. Our findings show that galaxy positions from the imaging catalog produce a measurement similar to the measurements made with only spectroscopic data. This demonstrates that imaging can improve our signal-to-noise ratio for multiplet alignment in DESI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Notes of the AASSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207