MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6958089429 · doi:10.60692/c0jza-sya26

DESI Mock Challenge: Constructing DESI galaxy catalogues based on FastPM simulations

2023· article· en· W6958089429 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisCovariance matrixCovarianceGalaxyHaloEstimation of covariance matricesCovariance intersectionFourier transform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Together with larger spectroscopic surveys such as the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), the precision of large scale structure studies and thus the constraints on the cosmological parameters are rapidly improving. Therefore, one must build realistic simulations and robust covariance matrices. We build galaxy catalogues by applying a Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD) model upon the FastPM simulations, such that the resulting galaxy clustering reproduces high resolution N-body simulations. While the resolution and halo finder are different from the reference simulations, we reproduce the reference galaxy two-point clustering measurements – monopole and quadrupole – to a precision required by the DESI Year 1 Emission Line Galaxy sample down to non-linear scales, i.e. k < 0.5 h/Mpc or s > 10 Mpc/h. Furthermore, we compute covariance matrices based on the resulting FastPM galaxy clustering – monopole and quadrupole. We study for the first time the effect of fitting on Fourier conjugate [e.g. power spectrum] on the covariance matrix of the Fourier counterpart [e.g. correlation function]. We estimate the uncertainties of the two parameters of a simple clustering model and observe a maximum variation of 20 per cent for the different covariance matrices. Nevertheless, for most studied scales the scatter is between two to ten per cent. Consequently, using the current pipeline we can precisely reproduce the clustering of N-body simulations and the resulting covariance matrices provide robust uncertainty estimations against HOD fitting scenarios. We expect our methodology will be useful for the coming DESI data analyses and their extension for other studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→