Euclid preparation. XCII. Controlling angular systematics in the Euclid spectroscopic galaxy sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the strategy used to identify and mitigate potential sources of angular systematics in the \textit{Euclid} spectroscopic galaxy survey, and we quantify their impact on galaxy clustering measurements and cosmological parameter estimation. We first surveyed the \textit{Euclid} processing pipeline to identify all evident, potential sources of systematics, and classified them into two broad classes: angular systematics, which modulate the galaxy number density across the sky, and catastrophic redshift errors, which lead to interlopers in the galaxy sample. We then used simulated spectroscopic surveys to test our ability to mitigate angular systematics by constructing a random catalogue that represents the `visibility mask' of the survey; this is a dense set of intrinsically unclustered objects, subject to the same selection effects as the data catalogue. The construction of this random catalogue relies on a detection model, which gives the probability of reliably measuring the galaxy redshift as a function of the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of its emission lines. We demonstrate that, in the ideal case of a perfect knowledge of the visibility mask, the galaxy power spectrum in the presence of systematics is recovered, to within sub-per cent accuracy, by convolving a theory power spectrum with a window function obtained from the random catalogue itself. In the case of only approximate knowledge of the visibility mask, we test the stability of power spectrum measurements and cosmological parameter posteriors by using perturbed versions of the random catalogue. We find that significant effects are limited to very large scales, and parameter estimation remains robust; the most impacting effects are connected to the calibration of the detection model.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.234 | 0.249 |
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".