ELG Spectroscopic Systematics Analysis of the DESI Data Release 1
Abstract
Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) uses more than 2.4 million Emission Line Galaxies (ELGs) for 3D large-scale structure (LSS) analyses in its Data Release 1 (DR1). Such large statistics enable thorough research on systematic uncertainties. In this study, we focus on spectroscopic systematics of ELGs. The redshift success rate () is the relative fraction of secure redshifts among all measurements. It depends on observing conditions, thus introduces non-cosmological variations to the LSS. We, therefore, develop the redshift failure weight () and a per-fibre correction () to mitigate these dependences. They have minor influences on the galaxy clustering. For ELGs with a secure redshift, there are two subtypes of systematics: 1) catastrophics (large) that only occur in a few samples; 2) redshift uncertainty (small) that exists for all samples. The catastrophics represent 0.26% of the total DR1 ELGs, composed of the confusion between [O ii] and sky residuals, double objects, total catastrophics and others. We simulate the realistic 0.26% catastrophics of DR1 ELGs, the hypothetical 1% catastrophics, and the truncation of the contaminated in the AbacusSummit ELG mocks. Their show non-negligible bias from the uncontaminated mocks. But their influences on the redshift space distortions (RSD) parameters are smaller than . The redshift uncertainty of DR1 ELGs is 8.5 with a Lorentzian profile. The code for implementing the catastrophics and redshift uncertainty on mocks can be found in https://github.com/Jiaxi-Yu/modelling_spectro_sys.
1 Introduction
Galaxy redshift surveys probe the 3D LSS of the Universe by measuring the redshifts of millions of galaxies and quasars. Baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO; [1]) and redshift-space distortions (RSD; [2]) encoded in the galaxy clustering reflect the properties of dark energy and dark matter. However, artefacts, or observational systematics, may introduce biases or reduce the precision of the cosmological measurements via BAO and RSD [e.g., 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Therefore, identifying, describing, and correcting any systematics that may exist in the cosmological measurements is essential for redshift surveys.
Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI, 2021-2026) [8, 9, 10] is conducting the largest galaxy redshift survey to date with the 4-meter Mayall Telescope at Kitt Peak, Arizona, US. DESI has already observed thousands of square degrees of the sky using robotic-controlled fibres [11]. It is on track to obtain the spectra of million galaxies and quasars over of the sky. Its early data release in June 2023 (EDR111https://data.desi.lbl.gov/doc/releases/edr, [12]) published the data collected during the survey validation phase [13] from December 2020 to May 2021, covering several hundred square degrees of sky. Its 5-year survey then started in May 2021, and the data collected during the first year of observations will be made available in the first data release (DR1 , [14]). DR1 uses 300,017 Bright Galaxies between redshift (BGS; [15]), 2,138,600 Luminous Red Galaxies between redshift (LRGs; [16]), 2,432,022 Emission Line Galaxies between redshift (ELG; [17]) and 1,223,170 quasars (QSO) between redshift [18] that are observed over more than of the sky for cosmological analysis [19]. These dark matter tracers are grouped into LSS catalogues with different weights [20], aiming at providing unbiased clustering of galaxies, quasars, and the Ly forest [19, 21]. Accurate estimations of the full covariance matrices [22, 23, 24, 25, 26] and data blinding [27] are also crucial for the robustness of the cosmological results. The percent-level precision measurements of BAO are presented in [28, 21], where we show that the BAO precisions of the 1-year DESI observation outperform those from the two-decadal Sloan Sky Digital Survey (SDSS222https://www.sdss4.org/science/final-bao-and-rsd-measurements/; [29]). The RSD measurements of DR1 will come very soon in [30]. The cosmological constraints on , , , and dark energy equation of state informed by BAO are concluded in [31], presenting a detection of a CDM cosmology compared with the CDM. The cosmological constraints from RSD and the measurements of primordial non-Gaussianity will be introduced in [32, 33].
For DESI DR1, we consider three types of observational systematics that could influence the cosmological measurements: target selection [34], fibre assignment [35] and redshift measurements [36, 37]. DESI Legacy Imaging Survey [38] was built to provide galaxy and quasar candidates for spectroscopic observations. The Bei**g-Arizona Sky Survey (G, R bands), and the Mayall Z-band Legacy Survey (BASS/MzLS ; [39]) comprise the north galactic cap of the DESI footprint with declination larger than . The rest of the DESI footprint is covered by the Dark Energy Camera Legacy Survey (DECaLS; [40]) and the Dark Energy Survey (DES; [41]) observed with the Dark Energy Camera (DECam; [42]). The systematics analyses of the redshift measurements are thus split into BASS/MzLS and DECam parts due to the difference in their instruments. Imaging systematics are artefacts introduced from the target selection by, for example, the accuracy of the photometric information and the selection criteria. The modelling and corrections of imaging systematics are described in detail in [43, 44, 45, 46]. Fibre assignment with proper designs ensures that the redshift survey will be completed on time but will also introduce unphysical variations in the observed galaxy clustering. [47, 48, 49, 50] address the effects of it from different aspects. [51] and this paper characterize the impact of bad redshift measurements for all types of tracers. Specifically, this paper focuses on ELGs, the largest group of objects in the DESI survey, due to their unique role in probing the LSS in the star-forming epoch at .
The success rate of the redshift measurement () varies with observing conditions, reflecting the unphysical galaxy density variations brought by the instruments of DESI. Correcting these effects requires fair up- or down-weighting on galaxy samples with secure redshift measurements, thus avoiding potential impact on the LSS analysis. For those with secure redshift measurements, their redshift are not necessarily the true redshift. A small fraction of ELGs, e.g., 0.3% for eBOSS DR16 [5] and DESI preliminary studies [17, 52], have secure redshifts that are very different from its true redshift for various reasons. This may also introduce bias to the clustering measurements by significantly altering the LSS. In most cases, secure redshift measurements are close to its true redshift, with statistical uncertainties. It is as small as for DESI ELGs [17, 53], resulting in negligible clustering impact on . We will study all three aspects of the spectroscopic systematics for DR1 ELGs at and quantify their clustering and cosmological impacts.
This paper is arranged as follows. We describe the DR1 data, especially the corrections on the redshift success rate, galaxy mocks, and covariance matrices involved in our systematics analysis in Section 2. The two-point clustering estimators and DESI cosmological pipeline will be introduced in Section 3. Section 4 presents the characterization and corrections of the redshift failures. The feature and impact of redshift catastrophics and uncertainty of ELGs with reliable redshift measurements will be introduced in Section 5. Finally, we conclude our findings in Section 6.
In this work, we adopt a flat CDM fiducial cosmology from the mean results of Planck [54] base_plikHM_TTTEEE_lowl_lowE_lensing with (single massive neutrino). This is the fiducial DESI cosmology when converting the positions of objects to Cartesian coordinates in the two-point statistics computation, and also the cosmology of ELG mocks [55] built on AbacusSummit simulations [56].
2 Data and Mocks
2.1 DESI DR1 Data
The DR1 data of DESI is the first year of the DESI Main Survey (May 2021 to June 2022, [14]). Covering over 7,400 square degrees of the sky, DR1 includes more than 6 million spectra of galaxies and quasars with accurate redshift at for cosmological measurements with LSS. We focus on the spectroscopic systematics of ELG_LOPnotqso samples (ELG hereafter) in DESI DR1 [20]. This corresponds to ELG targets that have a high observational priority (ELG_LOP with a surface number density deg-2) and are not part of QSO targets ( of ELG_LOP) [17]. We include three types of data products in our study: 1) the full_HPmapcut catalogue that includes all DR1 ELG targets with a good observing prerequisite and imaging properties [19]. It means that all observed ELG targets (not necessarily true ELGs) with good and failed redshift measurements at all redshifts are included. This catalogue is used to construct (Section 4.1) and explore the possible improvement of it (Section 4.2). We refer to it as full catalogue afterwards; 2) the DR1 ELG LSS catalogues with ELGs at [20]. It includes the total observational systematics weight , assuming systematics are decomposable and all corrections are non-overlap**. is obtained as follows:
(2.1) |
where is for the correction of the target completeness due to fibre assignment, is for imaging systematics, and is for the failed-redshift systematics (see Section 4.1). The LSS catalogue of ELGs is used to quantify the clustering impact of the redshift failure weight and its corrections; 3) spectroscopically confirmed ELGs from the One-Percent Survey of EDR. This dataset will be used to construct a catalogue of repeated observation (Section 2.1.2) for systematics studies in Section 5 and provide the visual inspection of catastrophics in Appendix A.
2.1.1 Redshift Success Rate
are weights that account for missing objects in the observed LSS (i.e., not in LSS catalogues) due to failed redshift measurements. An ELG redshift measurement is classified as successful if it meets the requirement as follows [17]
(2.2) |
where is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the [O ii] emission line fit, and is the difference between the best-fit redshift and the second-best redshift in the Redrock pipeline. This means that a reliable ELG redshift measurement should have either a high [O ii] SNR or a large .
The success rate of redshift measurement is the complement of the redshift failure rate. We always use the normalized redshift success rate in this study, defined as
(2.3) |
where represents different observing conditions (e.g., the effective observing time, the position on the focal plane). is the number of ELG targets observed in appropriate conditions with no instrumental issue, and is a subsample of with good redshift measurements (Eq. 2.2). For DR1 ELGs, [51].
We remind our readers that we measure for BASS/MzLS and DECam footprint separately. It means that all studies and discussions are divided into these two areas (i.e., area selections are applied on both and ). Additional selections (e.g., on redshift range as discussed in Figure 2) should be implemented on only as they have reliable properties including redshift measurements.
2.1.2 Repeated Observation Catalogue
The studies of redshift catastrophics and uncertainty are based on repeated observations of the same object. The DESI One-Percent Survey, part of the survey validation program [13], has a footprint that overlaps with the DR1 footprint. In DR1, the same object can be observed repeatedly on different nights. So, we select all repeated redshift measurements of ELG_LOPnotqso samples (DR1 ELGs hereafter) by cross-match these two data sets processed with the same versions of Redrock [37], and we compute the redshift difference iteratively among pairs. Studies based on these repeated observations represent the properties of DESI DR1 ELGs since they are fair subsamples by construction (see, e.g. Section 5.1)
There are 115,160 pairs of repeated observation for DR1 ELGs, and 307 pairs (0.26%) of them have , which are the catastrophics in our study. This is similar to the ELG catastrophics rate of the DESI survey validation data [17]. We will provide a detailed description of these samples in Section 5.1. Pairs with will be used to study the redshift uncertainty (Section 5.4). is roughly symmetric w.r.t. 0 as illustrated in Section 5.4.
2.2 Galaxy Mocks and Covariance Matrices
We employ galaxy mocks that mimic the DR1 ELG samples to assist our study of spectroscopic systematics. The model ELGs were generated by implementing a modified high-mass-quenched HOD model [55] on AbacusSummit simulations [56] in a box at . Next, these model galaxies in simulation boxes were downsampled to the observed redshift distribution of DR1 ELG samples and truncated to a spherical shell that matches the footprint of the DESI DR1 survey. The survey-like model ELGs then went through the data reduction pipeline of real observations [48] (i.e., altmtl) to select the ‘observed’ ELGs. The output mock ELG catalogue is similar to the full catalogue as mentioned in Section 2.1, and we will apply the modelled spectroscopic systematics (see Section 5) to this catalogue. Finally, mocks with and without systematics will be processed by the pipeline to generate LSS catalogues for data (data type 2 in Section 2.1) and to calculate the two-point statistics (see Section 3.1) for comparison. There are 25 realizations of AbacusSummit simulations. Therefore, we will implement the systematics on all 25 realizations of the ELG mocks, and their averaged clustering will be used for cosmological tests to reduce the effect of cosmic variance.
The cosmological measurements require accurate estimations of the overall cosmic variance, i.e. the full covariance matrices. We also need accurate covariance matrices to quantify the clustering and cosmological impact of spectroscopic systematics. In our study, we use analytical covariances created by thecov333https://github.com/cosmodesi/thecov [24] in the Fourier space for the power spectrum multipoles, , which is based on CovaPT444https://github.com/JayWadekar/CovaPT/ [57] and RascalC555https://github.com/oliverphilcox/RascalC666https://github.com/misharash/RascalC-scripts/ in the configuration space for the two-point correlation function (2PCF) multipoles, [58, 25]. We direct the reader to [26] for a detailed study of the covariance matrices in DESI DR1.
3 Method
3.1 Two-point Statistics
Two-point statistics describe the probability of finding excess pairs of galaxies compared to a random distribution. The detailed description of the computation in DESI DR1 can be found in [19]. In this section, we provide a summary of their computational techniques.
The distribution of galaxies from LSS catalogues has been corrected by to screen the impact of observational systematics. In addition, the evolution of the galaxy number density as redshift will introduce extra clustering variance at BAO scale [59]. We thus include the FKP weights in the clustering measurement, defined as
(3.1) |
where is the tracer average number density at redshift , and for ELGs, is the amplitude of the observed power spectrum at . Therefore, we weight each galaxy with for 2-point statistics measurements.
In the configuration space, we measure the two-point correlation function (2PCF). It depends on the comoving distance between pairs of galaxies and , which is the cosine of the angle between the distance vector and the line-of-sight. For galaxies observed from redshift surveys, we use the Landy–Szalay estimator (LS) to calculate the [60]:
(3.2) |
where DD, DR and RR represent the number of galaxy pairs identified in data–data catalogues, data–random catalogues, and random–random catalogues at a given distance and angle normalized by their corresponding total number of pairs in these catalogues. can be decomposed by Legendre polynomials to obtain the multipoles of as
(3.3) |
We compute the galaxy pairs for observations using the DESI package pycorr777https://github.com/cosmodesi/pycorr, a wrapper of the CORRFUNC package [61, 62], between 0-200 in 200 linear bins and with 200 linear bins and regroup them to obtain the with for . We use the comoving distance at for calculations (Section 3.2).
Power spectra are two-point statistics in Fourier space. Its estimator [63] is based on the weighted field [59]:
(3.4) |
where is the 3D Cartesian coordinate, and are the binned -weighted data and -weighted random catalogues on a grid of cell size 6, and rescales the mean density of the random catalogue to the mean data density. The power spectrum multipoles can be written as
(3.5) |
where is the wavenumber between galaxy pairs and the number of modes in a bin, and
(3.6) |
where is the cosine of the angle between the wavenumber vector and the line-of-sight . The shot-noise is non-zero for as
(3.7) |
The normalization term is summed over a cell with in size. We compute our observed with pypower888https://github.com/cosmodesi/pypower [64] from 0–0.4 with for . The calculations include (Section 3.2).
3.2 Quantifying the Clustering Differences
We use to describe the differences between the standard clustering and the clustering for mocks with spectroscopic systematics, defined as
(3.8) |
where denotes the vector composed of the two-point statistics multipoles. We calculate the values for at in the configuration space and at in Fourier space. represents the standard clustering measurement which is 1) ELGs from LSS catalogues with (Table 1 from Section 4) and 2) AbacusSummit ELG mocks without catastrophics (Table 2 from Section 5). , correspondingly, is the clustering of 1) ELGs with other redshift success corrections and 2) AbacusSummit ELG mocks with different catastrophics. is the inverse of the analytical covariance matrices. estimates the maximum deviations the systematics can introduce to cosmological measurement rescaled by the cosmic variance. We think the effect of a type of systematics is negligible if (i.e., cosmological impacts ). To avoid confusion, we use and for the 1 error of the galaxy clustering in the configuration space and Fourier space, respectively in the following sections. They are the square root of the diagonal terms of the analytical covariance matrices .
3.3 RSD Tests: ShapeFit and Full Modelling
We study the influence of ELG spectroscopic systematics on RSD measurements with full modelling method and ShapeFit compression [65, 66, 67, 68]. The full modelling of RSD is to generate model-dependent theoretical power spectra with linear power spectra provided directly by Boltzmann codes such as CLASS [69] and CAMB [70]. This algorithm is thus computationally expensive, since each sampling of cosmology requires the calculation of the accurate . ShapeFit compression, in contrast, is a more efficient, model-independent way of producing from . The of ShapeFit is parameterized as follows [71]
(3.9) |
where is the linear power spectra under the DESI fiducial cosmology, is the pivot scale and is the sound horizon scale, . is the free parameter to approximate the accurate linear power spectra. In our tests, we use velocileptors999https://github.com/sfschen/velocileptors for both tests wrapped in desilike101010https://github.com/cosmodesi/desilike, the DESI cosmological pipeline. To speedup the fitting, we employ the emulator in desilike based on the Taylor expansion . The cosmological parameters for full modelling are where . For ShapeFit , representing the isotropic and anisotropic BAO dilation (see [28] for detailed explanations), is the difference between the measured linear growth rate and the fiducial value, .
To take into account the observational geometry, we need to apply the window matrix on as . Assuming a Gaussian likelihood , where is defined as
(3.10) |
represent the data vector of systematics-uncontaminated and contaminated mocks, is the data vector of geometry-modulated theory. We consider in the RSD fitting.
4 Redshift Success Rate Corrections
4.1 The Redshift Failure Weight
Redshift failures are observed objects that do not have reliable redshift measurements. They are dropped from the LSS catalogue and thus may lead to an underestimation of galaxy density in the observed 3D map of the Universe. A straightforward way of making up for the absence of objects is to up-weigh the nearest object to the failed observation on the sky, i.e., count it as two objects when calculating the galaxy clustering. This simple weighting scheme was used in LRGs from the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS, 2008–2014; [72]) from SDSS-III [73]. It worked well as the failed redshift measurements were distributed randomly on the focal plane and only composed of less than 2% of the total observation [74].
However, when the failure rate rises up to 10%, e.g., for LRGs from the extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (eBOSS, 2014–2020; [75]) of SDSS-IV [76], such a simple up-weighting no longer stands. This is because its assumption that the failed samples have similar properties to the successful ones is too strong (see [17] for the case of ELGs). [77] proposed a more sophisticated way to correct the impact of failed redshifts by modelling the redshift success rate () and building weights based on this model. The failure rate of ELGs is at 30% level [5, 17], we, therefore, need to construct a model () as a function of different observing conditions to correct the influence of the spectroscopic observation on the intrinsic galaxy distribution. We model the normalized success rate Eq. 2.3 instead of the absolute success rate to avoid assumptions on the failed samples.
The primary observing condition influencing is the observational squared SNR of ELG spectra TSNR2_ELG ( hereafter), which is proportional to the effective observing time. is defined as follows [36]
(4.1) |
where is the calibration coefficient of photon-electron conversion measured from each observed spectrum, involving the product of throughput111111Figure 27 of [11] present the throughput of DESI instrument. (the system’s efficiency of collecting incoming photons) and the real exposure time. is the squared spectral line flux averaged over all spectral templates. is the noise variance, including the instrumental noise and sky spectra. is the wavelength index of the whole spectrum. All else held constant, should be monotonic with .
In addition to , we find that also varies as the redshift. This is because the sky emission lines appear at distinct wavelengths corresponding to distinct redshifts at which [O ii] emission can be observed (see Section 7.2 of [17] for example). The at these redshifts are lower than the others because the noise level (the flux of sky-spectrum residuals) is high for [O ii] detections.
We aim to obtain a redshift failure weight that corrects the dependences on and redshift. This correction is part of the total weight in DR1 ELG LSS catalogue as introduced in Section 2.1. But is constructed for all observed ELG targets, including those without reliable redshift measurements. Bearing this in mind, it is necessary to find quantities other than the ‘redshift’ itself to embody the challenges of [O ii] detection in the presence of sky emission lines.
4.1.1 [O ii] Emission and Redshift Measurement
First, we compute the median [O ii] flux ratio as a function of redshift, i.e., . It is an empirical measure of how difficult it is to obtain a successful ELG redshift measurement as a function of redshift, thus critical in modelling . We define it as
(4.2) |
where is the median [O ii] flux of ELGs with reliable redshift measurements (samples from in Eq. 2.3). is the median of ELGs with appropriate observing conditions (samples from in Eq. 2.3). is relevant, as the dominant factor in the redshift success criteria Eq. 2.2 is the SNR of the observed [O ii] flux. The object must have a larger [O ii] flux to secure a good redshift measurement when the spectrum is noisier. We, therefore, observe a larger at due to the interference of the sky emission lines to [O ii] measurements at that redshift range on the left panel of Figure 1. In DESI DR1 , we assume that [O ii] emitters with higher [O ii] flux are the same population as those with lower [O ii] flux, i.e., their clustering is consistent (e.g., see [78] for example). is calculated at , the clustering measurement range, with to have a balance between true featrues and noise.
Next, we need to find a theoretical curve that embodies the characteristics of at to build . The theoretical squared SNR of ELG spectra plays a role here, defined as
(4.3) |
where is the flux of emission lines121212This not only includes [O ii] doublets, but also other lines such as [O iii] , H. at redshift averaged over 50 processed ELG templates. These template spectra get their continuum removed, and their emission lines are shifted to the wavelength corresponding to redshift for calculation. is the inverse variance of the sky spectra obtained in a standard exposure and averaged over the 10 DESI spectrographs131313Specifically, we use exposure 165078 observed on January 28th, 2023.. is the wavelength index, and thus, the sum is performed over all DESI wavelength for Å . Thus, this quantity estimates how an ELG target’s cumulative squared SNR should change with its redshift . Numerically, we compute with a redshift resolution of at redshift to embody the influence of sky-residual spikes on the redshift measurement.
We find that a simple transformation of as follows:
(4.4) |
match both the general and fine features in as shown in the left panel of Figure 1 despite small deviations. In this way, we assign a value to all ELGs with successful redshifts to represent the difficulty of obtaining such a good redshift measurement.
![Refer to caption](x1.png)
4.1.2 The Model and Weight
Now we have and for every ELG with proper observing conditions and we expect our to increase with these two quantities monotonically. In practice, we split these ELGs in 20 bins of , each with the same number of galaxies. In each bin , we fit a linear relationship to ,i in 10 evenly spaced bins of . All fits assume Poissonian errors for ,i, i.e., .
We then take the 20 slopes and their corresponding median and perform a least-squares linear fit (errors are assumed to be the same given the number of galaxies was the same for each calculation) to obtain
(4.5) |
This process is repeated separately for the BASS/MzLS and DECam regions, and the results, including the best-fit lines and parameters, are shown in the middle and right panel of Figure 1. Note that the largest 90% , though having significantly larger , agrees with the - trend of the smaller . Therefore, we do not implement more complicated regression and stability checks of these two - relations in this study. We will discuss the consequence of this choice in Section 4.3.
Finally, we convert the parameterized slope to a weight that can be attached to the galaxy catalogues to remove any trends between and (, ). We expect the redshift success should only increase as a function of . Thus, we clip such that it has a minimum value of 0:
(4.6) |
Assuming the intercept , with being the median of all ELG targets with appropriate observing conditions, we now have a as a function of redshift and
(4.7) |
We simply use the inverse of this for the weight to attach to the galaxy catalog
(4.8) |
![Refer to caption](x2.png)
Figure 2 presents the - relation before and after correction for samples from BASS/MzLS and DECam surveys. ELGs with good redshifts are split into finer bins with at for computation. The errors are binomial errors
(4.9) |
and their represents the deviation from a uniform - relation. The mean values of fluctuate a bit, but all relations are consistent with monotonic tendencies. The - dependency in both footprints is close to unity before the correction, except for the -level variations at and the 30%-trend at . They correspond to the big spikes of and in the left panel of Figure 1. Therefore, based on suppress the dependences of on at , especially on given the decreasing . Note that the values can still be as large as 3. But we do not worry about it as they represent a sub-percent difference, leading to a minor impact on the clustering as presented in Section 4.3.
4.2 The Focal Plane Correction
The not only depends on . It also varies across the focal plane (e.g., [5]). But is defined for each exposure, without information on the focal plane. The definition of used quantities that are averaged over spectrographs, eliminating the information as well. Consequently, does not remove the variations on the focal plane as shown in Figure 3. The left and middle panel shows a 10% variation across the focal plane, resulting in for BASS/MzLS and for DECam where 4262 is the number of fibres. Note that the median number of good redshift measurements per fibre for BASS/MzLS survey is 101, and that for DECam is 575. The smaller statistics of BASS/MzLS lead to larger variations and error bars, thus similar to DECam . Marginalising over the angular direction, the of fibres that are close to the focal centre shows 1% higher than that of the distant fibres as shown in the right panel of Figure 3. This difference still exists with corrections despite the fact that it is already close to the ideal case of a uniform distribution. Therefore, we need an extra correction factor on as a function of its position on the focal plane (or a fibre-dependent correction).
![Refer to caption](x3.png)
The correction of , , is defined fiber-wise as:
(4.10) |
where is the fibre ID ranging from 0 to 4999, but only 4262 of them provide measurements. The other 738 fibres are not used for scientific observations141414They mostly are stuck fibres, but we can still use them to obtain sky spectra. is the of fibre and is the mean of all samples. This fibre-wise correction is then implemented on each observed ELG target and multiplied to when we activate this weight. null all on the focal plane by definition, and thus the dependence on the distance to the focal centre is removed in both the BASS/MzLS and DECam footprints.
![Refer to caption](x4.png)
4.3 Performances of and
We have proved in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 that and can respectively correct the dependences on in fine redshift bins and the focal plane by construction. In this section, we will check their performance of removing other trends and their influences on galaxy clustering.
In the first column of Figure 4, the dependence of on for ELGs targets without redshift selection is around 5% (shades) and suppresses the trend down to 1% (closed error bars). The improvements are also significant, as shown in the decreasing values in both BASS/MzLS and DECam regions. Therefore, is included in the ELG LSS catalogue as part of the correction of observational systematics (Eq. 2.1). The over-suppression of BASS/MzLS for those with large () probably come from the imperfect linear regression on small values as shown in the middle panel of Figure 1. The open circles in the same subplots illustrate the effects of on the same trends as in Figure 4. This extra correction brings back missing information on the focal plane by and, therefore, improves weighting in small . This agrees with our conclusion that the source of the over-correction of in BASS/MzLS area is from the modelling, not from any uncorrected trend on the focal plane. We also notice that is not a perfect representation of . We will develop a better for future data release as these aspects a minor effect on the clustering.
The second to fourth panels of Figure 4 illustrates the dependence on the spectrograph-to-imaging flux ratio of standard stars at Å (G band), Å (R band) and Å (Z band). They represent the fibre aperture loss in the central wavelength of these three bands [36]. As the definition of includes the throughput of the fibre (Eq. 4.1), we expect that varies with throughputs, and can also remove most of the dependences on throughputs. The fibre aperture loss in R and Z bands present a more significant trend than in G band as the [O ii] emissions of DESI ELG targets are observed in R and Z bands. But the dependences on the throughputs remain after applying as shown in Figure 4. This is consistent with our finding in Figure 3 that by construction does not include the modelling of variations on the focal plane. The new weight, , nullifies the dependences on the throughputs by construction. This is because , defined per-fibre, eliminates the 2D variations on the focal plane. Consequently, any quantities defined based on fibres will have a unity mean after applying . However, such an ad hoc correction might have the risk of overfitting the DR1 , so it is not part of the LSS weight budget. We may consider adding it to in the future data release.
![Refer to caption](x5.png)
![Refer to caption](x6.png)
We then study the effects of and on galaxy clustering. To do this, we calculate the 2PCF and power spectra of ELGs from the LSS catalogues at and (redshift bins for LSS analyses). The galaxy weight of ELGs is the product of and the total observational weight in three formats: (Eq. 2.1), (no corrections on the failed redshift measurements) and (the complete LSS weights with extra corrections). The effects of the correction and the improved correction on the two-point statistics multipoles of DR1 ELG samples in the configuration space and Fourier space are displayed in Figure 5 and Figure 6, respectively. Both weights have influence on all two-point statistics multipoles at both redshift bins (see Section 3.2 for the definition of the 1- clustering error ). Such a minor effect of the redshift failure weights has been observed in eBOSS ELGs as well [5]. leads to a larger clustering impact at compared to the clustering at . This is implied in Figure 2 as the significant corrections that accomplished are all at . The effect of on redshift ranges and multipoles are all comparable, showing the impact of the 2D correction is evenly applied to all samples.
Space | redshift | ||
---|---|---|---|
Config. | 0 | 0.2 | |
0.15 | 0.18 | ||
Fourier | 0 | 0.22 | |
0.32 | 0.25 |
Table 1 provides the values of and weights compared to the standard clustering with . They are no larger than 0.32. So, we can conclude that we do not need to the cosmological impact of and its correction can be neglected. Nevertheless, it is important to note that not only depends on the effective exposure time and redshift . of each fibre also varies on the focal plane, independent of the variations brought by (, ). Therefore, future surveys must check the dependence of on different observing conditions and their correlation to develop a complete weight to correct the failed redshift measurements.
5 Redshift Catastrophics and Redshift Uncertainty
Catastrophics and redshift uncertainty are systematics hidden in ELG samples with secure redshift measurements (Eq. 2.2). With from repeated observations (Section 2.1.2), the catastrophics refer to pairs of redshift with a large . There are several definitions of ‘a large ’, which are [75, 17] (our definition), [79], or those with clear evidence of misidentification of emission lines or between the emission line and the sky residuals [3]. All these definitions mean that the radial position of a small number of tracers is shifted to a large extent, leading to imprints on the clustering. ELGs from DESI EDR and SDSS-IV eBOSS have [5, 17]. Given such a small fraction, its clustering and cosmological impacts are neglected in eBOSS analyses.
Redshift uncertainty comes from redshift measurement and thus exists in every galaxy in LSS catalogues. Repeated observations without the catastrophics samples provide a statistical estimation via the width of the distribution (e.g. [80, 81, 17] from SDSS-IV eBOSS). Note that repeated observations cannot capture the velocity shift of QSOs, which is part of QSO redshift uncertainty. But we can study this type of mixed uncertainty via their clustering effects (see [82, 53]). For galaxy samples, we assume statistical uncertainty represents the redshift uncertainty. The redshift uncertainty of DESI ELGs from EDR is , leading to little impact on the clustering [17, 53].
Given their properties, neither catastrophics nor redshift uncertainty can be corrected target-wise like but they influence the clustering collectively. Catastrophics of line emitters (i.e., ELGs) are poorly understood due to the limited statistics and small fraction as mentioned above. Now, with millions of reliable ELG samples from DESI DR1 [14] and well-modelled, realistic ELG mocks [55], we have enough good-quality samples to study the effect of catastrophics carefully. DESI DR1 have fewer samples with long exposure compared to EDR [12] to guarantee better redshift measurements. Therefore, we will revisit these two aspects in DESI DR1 ELGs, understand the data, model them with galaxy mocks, and see how to prevent them from biasing the cosmological measurements.
![Refer to caption](x7.png)
5.1 Characterising the Catastrophics
Catastrophics are discrepancies in the redshift measurements for the same object. As reported in Section 2.1.2, 0.26% of the repeated ELG pairs have . There is no preference for their locations in the focal plane, and their redshift distributions are shown in Figure 7. The upper panel of Figure 7 compares the true redshift () and the catastrophics redshift () for the ELG catastrophics detected with the repeated observation catalogue. We determine the and via visual inspection of their reduced spectra with the help of prospect151515https://github.com/biprateep/prospect [52, 83]. If a redshift measurement matches secure spectral features (e.g., the [O ii] doublets or multiple emission lines), this redshift is and the other measurement on the same object is . There are five types of catastrophics for ELGs shown in Figure 7 (see Appendix A for examples of their spectra):
-
•
The misidentification of the residuals of sky emissions at around 8600–8700 Å to be the [O ii] emission (sky confusion hereafter). They form a prominent feature in Figure 7 at as shown in crosses, comprising 26.7% of the total catastrophics samples. We observe a significant doublet-like spike in one of their spectra at 8600–8700Å, which is difficult to smooth out and, therefore, is identified as the [O ii] emission. The evolving DESI redshift pipeline might resolve this issue by improving the sky subtraction and line-identification process [36]. There is no such feature in the other spectrum of these repetitively observed objects, and thus, the redshift obtained by the other spectrum is correct ().
-
•
The misidentification of the sky residuals at other wavelengths as the [O ii] emission. The sky emissions/residuals appear at Å , corresponding to . As the [O ii] flux of ELGs at is systematically lower than the sky residuals (see Figure 15 of [17]), this type of catastrophics tends to increase the redshift of ELGs, i.e., from to . They make up 27.6% of the total catastrophic pairs.
-
•
Two objects in the spectra. The fibre might capture two overlap** objects with different redshifts, or the ELG spectra were contaminated by a bright, nearby object ( or around 0). As there are two sets of spectral features and thus true redshifts, the redshift pipeline can take either as its output redshift. These samples are mainly at and comprise 22.0% of the total catastrophics.
-
•
Total catastrophics. There are 12.1% catastrophics that do not have a correct redshift measurement at all. This is because the [O ii] emission is too faint to be found (by the Redrock pipeline and visual inspection). Therefore, Redrock can identify any of sky residuals as [O ii] doublets. Their and concentrate at because most of the sky residuals are at Å as mentioned above.
-
•
Other catastrophics. The remaining 11.6% catastrophics include line confusion between [O ii] doublets and other emission lines such as [O iii] and H, bad spectra, and QSO spectra misclassified as ELGs.
Although there are five patterns of catastrophics, we only need to model the excess sky confusion and all the other patterns (random catastrophics hereafter). The random catastrophics alone cannot reproduce the distinct feature of . Random catastrophics with additional sky confusions should represent more general catastrophics while avoiding overfitting our specific sample.
The ( hereafter) distribution of random catastrophics (left) and distribution of the sky confusion (right) are presented in Figure 8. We fit the excess sky confusion with a Gaussian distribution where and , enclosing 24.9% of the total catastrophics. This Gaussian function is shifted up by 0.61, representing the remaining 1.9% sky confusion that has been included in random catastrophics. The distribution of the random catastrophics can be fitted with a Gaussian profile, a Lorentzian profile and a log-normal profile with an extra free parameter which is defined as
(5.1) |
Assuming a binomial error, the log-normal profile provides a much better fitting to the distribution of random catastrophics. Its best-fitting parameters are .
![Refer to caption](x8.png)
5.2 Modelling the Catastrophics
The of sky confusion and random catastrophics both follow the of the ELG targets (full catalogue) as illustrated in Figure 7. Therefore, we randomly take 0.26% galaxies from the AbacusSummit mocks and implement the following pattern to reproduce the realistic catastrophics
(5.2) |
where is the redshift of AbacusSummit galaxy mocks. Half of is positive and the other half is negative, and follows . We also realise a 1% random catastrophics on AbacusSummit mocks for demonstration purposes. 1% is an upper limit of the ELG catastrophics rate in eBOSS and DESI [75, 17]. In addition, we remove AbacusSummit ELGs at , which is the easiest implementation on data if we want to avoid the impact on the sky confusion at . Given a similar after implementing the catastrophics, the of samples with is obtained with the . All the patterns are implemented on 25 realizations of AbacusSummit galaxy mocks.
![Refer to caption](x9.png)
![Refer to caption](x10.png)
5.3 Impact of Catastrophics
We present in Figure 9 and Figure 10 the impact of realistic 0.26% catastrophics, hypothetical 1% random catastrophics and removing ELGs at (the sky-confusion-contaminated range) on multipoles of the 2PCF and power spectra . Removing ELGs at is a possible solution to avoid the impact of the hidden sky confusion at , corresponding to .
Their influences are mainly embodied in galaxies at higher redshift . Realistic and 1% random catastrophics result in up to impact on and on . The catastrophics can also suppress the power spectra monopole by up to . Removing model ELGs at slightly perturbs the 2PCF as data and randoms both implemented the truncation. So there is no bias in its 2PCF and the difference from the standard clustering is due to the reduction of galaxies. Removing ELGs boosts the amplitude of ELG at by up to while the other catastrophics suppress the clustering. The opposite trend to the catastrophics models might be caused by the difference in the window functions.
At , only 1% random catastrophics lead to up to and influence in the configuration space and Fourier space, respectively. This is because the number of galaxies that the realistic catastrophics interferes at is too small, and removing galaxies at does not affect the LSS at lower redshifts. Hexadecapoles are robust to all three implementations.
Their are presented in Table 2. The DESI BAO analysis focusing on the configuration space will not [28] be influenced by any of the listed catastrophics. This is because the catastrophics do not move the position of the BAO peak. Their maximum (the left column of each ) is as small as 0.32. Both lead to negligible changes in the BAO cosmological parameters. However, their impacts become larger in Fourier space at due to the systematical shift they cause in the monopole and quadrupole. This could interfere with the RSD measurements. We should remind our reader that all catastrophics and redshift-removal implemented to AbacusSummit ELG mocks result in the change of window function. The difference in and values is not equivalent to their influence on cosmological measurements. Therefore, we perform cosmological fitting with their corresponding window function to determine how they will interfere with the parameters.
Space | redshift | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Config. | 0.05 | 0.33 | / | |
0.1 | 0.38 | 0.42 | ||
Fourier | 0.25 | 4.39 | / | |
1.46 | 6.66 | 4.21 |
The cosmological impact of the catastrophics in Fourier space are shown in Table 3 and Table 4. Despite the large , the cosmological impacts of all types of systematics are no larger than 0.2. That is because the nuisance parameters and window functions absorb most of the effects. Therefore, we do not need to worry about the influence of catastrophics on DESI ELG results.
Type | redshift | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Realistic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
0.04 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | ||
Random | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.06 | |
0.04 | 0.01 | 0 | 0.08 | ||
Cut | / | / | / | / | |
0.12 | 0.05 | 0 | 0.17 |
Type | redshift | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Realistic | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |
0 | 0.02 | 0 | 0.03 | ||
Random | 0.04 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.1 | |
0.06 | 0.02 | 0 | 0.07 | ||
Cut | / | / | / | / | |
0.06 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.14 |
5.4 Redshift Uncertainty
![Refer to caption](x11.png)
Repeated observations at with are used to measure the redshift uncertainty of ELGs as shown in Figure 11. Compared to a Gaussian profile, a Lorentzian profile described as follows is a better model of DR1 ELG distribution
(5.3) |
where , and . This is similar to the values of the visual inspection and survey validation programs for DESI ELGs [52, 17] that are at the level of , thus its impact on the DR1 ELG clustering is negligible on [53]. Its percentile velocities at 50, 95, and 99.5 % are 8.2, 53.5 and 139.0, respectively. They are less than half of the values from eBOSS ELGs, which are 20, 100, and 300 [5] thanks to the improvement of spectrographs and redshift pipeline [11, 36, 37].
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we investigate the spectroscopic systematics of ELGs in DESI DR1 and their clustering impact on 2PCF and the power spectrum . Spectroscopic systematics arise from the failed redshift measurements and cause non-cosmological variations in the galaxy distribution. One of the aspects is the redshift success rate dependences on the observing conditions. The other ones are collective effects introduced by the catastrophics and the redshift uncertainty in the redshift measurement.
The actual depends on the squared signal-to-noise for ELG spectra TSNR2_ELG () and redshift , leading to larger for ELGs with larger at different redshift bins. This is equivalent to unfairly up-weighting ELGs with high . We develop the redshift failure weight as the inverse of a linear function of as a function of (). With , we successfully recover a close-to-unity - relation for ELGs at fine redshift bins with . However, this weight is imperfect since there is no information for variations on the focal plane. Therefore, the dependencies on the distance from the focal centre, and the fibre aperture loss at G, R, and Z bands, do not show improvement after applying . We thus create fibre-based corrections on the . is the inverse of the -weighted for each fibre. Implementing leads to a more uniform - relation and a unity relation between , the distance to the focal plane, and all the throughput in different bands. Due to the small difference before any corrections, and result in smaller than in the monopole, quadrupole, and hexadecapole of and , corresponding to less than differences. It means that their cosmological influences are negligible.
Catastrophics and redshift uncertainty are systematics that are difficult to subtract from individual targets. They can be explored through repeated observations with the redshift difference , and their clustering impact can be modelled in cosmological theories. The catastrophics rate of DESI DR1 ELGs is 0.26%, similar to that of ELGs from DESI survey validation and eBOSS. There are five types of failure patterns: sky confusions that result in (26.7%), other misidentification between sky-emission residuals and [O ii] doublets (27.6%), double objects (22%), double failures (12.1%), and other failures (11.6%).
Despite the variety of the patterns, we can model their - relation in the AbacusSummit galaxy mocks with 75.1% of random catastrophics and 24.9% of the excess sky confusions besides the random catastrophics (realistic catastrophics). We also generate catastrophics-contaminated galaxy mocks with a hypothetical with 1% random catastrophics and mocks without the sky-confusion-contaminated redshift range . Their impacts on the 2PCF are as small as for all multipoles at , corresponding to . Therefore, we do not expect catastrophics to affect the BAO and RSD measurement in the configuration space. However, realistic failures and 1% random catastrophics systematically suppress the power spectra by up to at both redshift bins. Removing the contaminated shell of from the data is a simple solution to avoid bias in cosmological measurements based on the configuration space. In the Fourier space, removing a small shell of the observed 3D map boosts the monopole by at . All these lead to values larger than 1 in Fourier space. We calculate the new window function of all three mocks and do RSD fitting with full-modelling and ShapeFit compression. We find that the cosmological influence of the realistic catastrophics, the hypothetical 1% catastrophics and removing the contaminated are smaller than 0.2. This means that the deviation from the standard is mainly from the change of geometry and nuisance parameters. This level of systematics is also within the systematics budget of [30].
In conclusion, the spectroscopic systematics of ELGs have a minor impact on DESI cosmological measurements. Nevertheless, any unexpected patterns in this type of systematics are still worth examining. The modelling of needs to take into account the information on the focal plane as well despite the small variations. The catastrophics, composed of 0.26% of the ELGs, have minor impacts on the cosmological parameters. This is not problematic for the current redshift surveys, but it can be a problem for photometric surveys from space. The redshift uncertainty of ELGs is small thanks to the characteristic [O ii] doublet. But that of the Lyman-Alpha Emitters (LAEs), as a type of emission-line galaxies, though, might be more complicated. With more data and improved telescopes, we will be able to resolve all these issues before they become a significant problem.
Data Availability
The data used in this analysis will be made public along the Data Release 1 (details in https://data.desi.lbl.gov/doc/releases/). Zenodo includes all data to reproduce the figures in this paper: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11302698.
Acknowledgments
JY, DFS, and JPK acknowledge the support from the SNF 200020_175751 and 200020_207379 “Cosmology with 3D Maps of the Universe" research grant. We would like to thank Anand Raichoor, Allyson Brodzeller, Ruiyang Zhao and Julien Guy for their helpful discussions. We also would like to thank Andrei Variu for his support in visualising DESI spectra.
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of High-Energy Physics, under Contract No. DE–AC02–05CH11231, and by the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, a DOE Office of Science User Facility under the same contract. Additional support for DESI was provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Astronomical Sciences under Contract No. AST-0950945 to the NSF’s National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory; the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom; the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation; the Heising-Simons Foundation; the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA); the National Council of Humanities, Science and Technology of Mexico (CONAHCYT); the Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain (MICINN), and by the DESI Member Institutions: https://www.desi.lbl.gov/collaborating-institutions. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. National Science Foundation, the U. S. Department of Energy, or any of the listed funding agencies.
The authors are honored to be permitted to conduct scientific research on Iolkam Du’ag (Kitt Peak), a mountain with particular significance to the Tohono O’odham Nation.
Appendix A Visualise Spectra of ELG Catastrophics
![Refer to caption](x12.png)
We present the ELG spectra of sky confusion at , sky confusion at other redshifts, double objects in the spectra, totally failed redshift measurements, and the misidentification of H to be an [O ii] doublet in Figure 12 as introduced in Section 5.1. The insert subplots in the first, second and fifth spectra are enlarged spectral lines. The subplot on the left shows the spectra around the true [O ii] doublet (black solid lines with blue dashed vertical lines for [O ii] ) and the one on the right is the false [O ii] line that results in catastrophics. The physical [O ii] emission lines for the left subplot in the first and the second spectra differ from the sky residuals in the right subplot. The H emission in the right subplot of the fifth spectra was also different from the [O ii] doublet. However, Redrock was unable to distinguish them for some reason. Both redshift measurements are true in the third spectrum: one is determined by multiple emission lines from the object, and the other is from [O ii] emission. In the fourth spectra, both redshift measurements are wrong as they regard sky residuals at different redshifts as [O ii] doublets. All of them pass the good-redshift selection and most of them are within redshift range. This indicates that the 0.26% is probably a lower limit of the catastrophics rate because there can be consistently wrong redshift measurements that pass the good-redshift criteria hidden in the current catalogue.
Appendix B Catastrophics Impacts on Small-Scale 2PCF
In Section 5, we demonstrate that the impact of catastrophics on cosmological scales in the configuration space is negligible. In this section, we discuss the influence of catastrophics on small scales as it has not been corrected in the current clustering. As the analytical covariance is no longer applicable at , we used the jackknife error from the EDR ELG samples calculated with 128 subsamples using pycorr in our discussion. At , the catastrophics can suppress the monopole by up to and change quadrupole systematically as shown in Figure 13. This indicates that the galaxy-halo connection studies of ELGs in galaxy surveys, with HOD or SubHalo Abundance Matching (SHAM), may need to consider this effect when they fit the observed ELG clustering at small scales.
![Refer to caption](x13.png)
Appendix C Author Affiliations
1Institute of Physics, Laboratory of Astrophysics, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Observatoire de Sauverny, CH-1290 Versoix, Switzerland
2Center for Cosmology and AstroParticle Physics, The Ohio State University, 191 West Woodruff Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
3Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, 4055 McPherson Laboratory, 140 W 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
4The Ohio State University, Columbus, 43210 OH, USA
5Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, IRFU, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
6University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
7Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, LAM (Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille) UMR 7326, F13388, Marseille, France
8Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
9Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline St. North, Waterloo, ON N2L 2Y5, Canada
10Waterloo Centre for Astrophysics, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
11Graduate Institute of Astrophysics and Department of Physics, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei 10617, Taiwan
12Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
13Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
14Physics Dept., Boston University, 590 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA
15Department of Physics & Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
16Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cd. de México C.P. 04510, México
17NSF NOIRLab, 950 N. Cherry Ave., Tucson, AZ 85719, USA
18Department of Physics & Astronomy and Pittsburgh Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Center (PITT PACC), University of Pittsburgh, 3941 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
19Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, Menlo Park, CA 94305, USA
20SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94305, USA
21Departamento de Física, Universidad de los Andes, Cra. 1 No. 18A-10, Edificio Ip, CP 111711, Bogotá, Colombia
22Observatorio Astronómico, Universidad de los Andes, Cra. 1 No. 18A-10, Edificio H, CP 111711 Bogotá, Colombia
23Institut d’Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC), 08034 Barcelona, Spain
24Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Dennis Sciama Building, Portsmouth, PO1 3FX, UK
25Institute of Space Sciences, ICE-CSIC, Campus UAB, Carrer de Can Magrans s/n, 08913 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
26Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, 191 West Woodruff Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
27School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Queensland, 4072, Australia
28Sorbonne Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies (LPNHE), FR-75005 Paris, France
29Departament de Física, Serra Húnter, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
30Institut de Física d’Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra Barcelona, Spain
31Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, Passeig de Lluís Companys, 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain
32Department of Physics and Astronomy, Siena College, 515 Loudon Road, Loudonville, NY 12211, USA
33Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QH, U.K
34Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University, Dept. 3905, Laramie, WY 82071, USA
35National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, A20 Datun Rd., Chaoyang District, Bei**g, 100012, P.R. China
36Departamento de Física, Universidad de Guanajuato - DCI, C.P. 37150, Leon, Guanajuato, México
37Instituto Avanzado de Cosmología A. C., San Marcos 11 - Atenas 202. Magdalena Contreras, 10720. Ciudad de México, México
38Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, 7 Gauss Way, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
39University of California, Berkeley, 110 Sproul Hall #5800 Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
40Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (CSIC), Glorieta de la Astronomía, s/n, E-18008 Granada, Spain
41Department of Physics, Kansas State University, 116 Cardwell Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
42Department of Physics and Astronomy, Sejong University, Seoul, 143-747, Korea
43CIEMAT, Avenida Complutense 40, E-28040 Madrid, Spain
44Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
45Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
46Department of Physics & Astronomy, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA
47Department of Astronomy, Tsinghua University, 30 Shuangqing Road, Haidian District, Bei**g, China, 100190
References
- [1] D.J. Eisenstein and W. Hu, Baryonic Features in the Matter Transfer Function, Astrophys. J. 496 (1998) 605 [astro-ph/9709112].
- [2] N. Kaiser, Clustering in real space and in redshift space, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 227 (1987) 1.
- [3] C. Blake, S. Brough, M. Colless, W. Couch, S. Croom, T. Davis et al., The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: the selection function and z = 0.6 galaxy power spectrum, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 406 (2010) 803 [1003.5721].
- [4] A.J. Ross, F. Beutler, C.-H. Chuang, M. Pellejero-Ibanez, H.-J. Seo, M. Vargas-Magaña et al., The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: observational systematics and baryon acoustic oscillations in the correlation function, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 464 (2017) 1168 [1607.03145].
- [5] A. Raichoor, A. de Mattia, A.J. Ross, C. Zhao, S. Alam, S. Avila et al., The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: large-scale structure catalogues and measurement of the isotropic BAO between redshift 0.6 and 1.1 for the Emission Line Galaxy Sample, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 500 (2021) 3254 [2007.09007].
- [6] A. Tamone, A. Raichoor, C. Zhao, A. de Mattia, C. Gorgoni, E. Burtin et al., The completed SDSS-IV extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: growth rate of structure measurement from anisotropic clustering analysis in configuration space between redshift 0.6 and 1.1 for the emission-line galaxy sample, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499 (2020) 5527 [2007.09009].
- [7] A. de Mattia, V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, A. Raichoor, A.J. Ross, A. Tamone, C. Zhao et al., The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the emission line galaxy sample from the anisotropic power spectrum between redshift 0.6 and 1.1, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501 (2021) 5616 [2007.09008].
- [8] M. Levi, C. Bebek, T. Beers, R. Blum, R. Cahn, D. Eisenstein et al., The DESI Experiment, a whitepaper for Snowmass 2013, arXiv e-prints (2013) arXiv:1308.0847 [1308.0847].
- [9] DESI Collaboration, A. Amir, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al., The desi experiment part i: Science,targeting, and survey design, 2016.
- [10] DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al., The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design, Oct., 2016.
- [11] DESI Collaboration, B. Abareshi, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., Overview of the Instrumentation for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, Astron. J. 164 (2022) 207 [2205.10939].
- [12] DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, G. Aldering et al., The Early Data Release of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2306.06308 [2306.06308].
- [13] DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, G. Aldering et al., Validation of the Scientific Program for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, Astron. J. 167 (2024) 62 [2306.06307].
- [14] DESI Collaboration, DESI 2024 I: Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, in preparation (2025) .
- [15] C. Hahn, M.J. Wilson, O. Ruiz-Macias, S. Cole, D.H. Weinberg, J. Moustakas et al., The DESI Bright Galaxy Survey: Final Target Selection, Design, and Validation, Astron. J. 165 (2023) 253 [2208.08512].
- [16] R. Zhou, B. Dey, J.A. Newman, D.J. Eisenstein, K. Dawson, S. Bailey et al., Target Selection and Validation of DESI Luminous Red Galaxies, Astron. J. 165 (2023) 58 [2208.08515].
- [17] A. Raichoor, J. Moustakas, J.A. Newman, T. Karim, S. Ahlen, S. Alam et al., Target Selection and Validation of DESI Emission Line Galaxies, Astron. J. 165 (2023) 126 [2208.08513].
- [18] E. Chaussidon, C. Yèche, N. Palanque-Delabrouille, D.M. Alexander, J. Yang, S. Ahlen et al., Target Selection and Validation of DESI Quasars, Astrophys. J. 944 (2023) 107 [2208.08511].
- [19] DESI Collaboration, DESI 2024 II: Sample definitions, characteristics and two-point clustering statistics, in preparation (2024) .
- [20] A. Ross et al., Construction of Large-scale Structure Catalogs for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, in preparation (2024) .
- [21] DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., DESI 2024 IV: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.03001 [2404.03001].
- [22] C. Zhao et al., Mock catalogues with survey realism for the DESI DR1, in preparation (2024) .
- [23] F. Prada et al., Covariance errors from GLAM N-body simulations for DESI 2024, in preparation (2024) .
- [24] O. Alves et al., Analytical covariance matrices of DESI galaxy power spectra, in preparation (2024) .
- [25] M. Rashkovetskyi, D. Forero-Sánchez, A. de Mattia, D.J. Eisenstein, N. Padmanabhan, H. Seo et al., Semi-analytical covariance matrices for two-point correlation function for DESI 2024 data, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.03007 [2404.03007].
- [26] D. Forero-Sanchez et al., Analytical and EZmock covariance validation for the DESI 2024 results, in preparation (2024) .
- [27] U. Andrade, J. Mena-Fernández, H. Awan, A.J. Ross, S. Brieden, J. Pan et al., Validating the Galaxy and Quasar Catalog-Level Blinding Scheme for the DESI 2024 analysis, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.07282 [2404.07282].
- [28] DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., DESI 2024 III: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.03000 [2404.03000].
- [29] S. Alam, M. Aubert, S. Avila, C. Balland, J.E. Bautista, M.A. Bershady et al., Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 083533 [2007.08991].
- [30] DESI Collaboration, DESI 2024 V: Analysis of the full shape of two-point clustering statistics from galaxies and quasars, in preparation (2024) .
- [31] DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.03002 [2404.03002].
- [32] DESI Collaboration, DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological constraints from full-shape analyses of the two-point clustering statistics measurements, in preparation (2024) .
- [33] DESI Collaboration, DESI 2024 VIII: Constraints on Primordial Non-Gaussianities, in preparation (2024) .
- [34] A.D. Myers, J. Moustakas, S. Bailey, B.A. Weaver, A.P. Cooper, J.E. Forero-Romero et al., The Target-selection Pipeline for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, Astron. J. 165 (2023) 50 [2208.08518].
- [35] Raichoor et al., in preparation (2024) .
- [36] J. Guy, S. Bailey, A. Kremin, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, C. Allende Prieto et al., The Spectroscopic Data Processing Pipeline for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, Astron. J. 165 (2023) 144 [2209.14482].
- [37] Bailey et al., in preparation (2024) .
- [38] Schlegel et al., in preparation (2024) .
- [39] H. Zou, X. Zhou, X. Fan, T. Zhang, Z. Zhou, J. Nie et al., Project Overview of the Bei**g-Arizona Sky Survey, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac 129 (2017) 064101 [1702.03653].
- [40] A. Dey, D.J. Schlegel, D. Lang, R. Blum, K. Burleigh, X. Fan et al., Overview of the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys, Astron. J. 157 (2019) 168 [1804.08657].
- [41] The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, The Dark Energy Survey, arXiv e-prints (2005) astro [astro-ph/0510346].
- [42] B. Flaugher, H.T. Diehl, K. Honscheid, T.M.C. Abbott, O. Alvarez, R. Angstadt et al., The Dark Energy Camera, Astron. J. 150 (2015) 150 [1504.02900].
- [43] A. Rosado-Marin et al., Mitigating Imaging Systematics for DESI DR1 Emission Line Galaxies and Beyond, in preparation (2024) .
- [44] H. Kong et al., Forward modeling fluctuations in the DESI LRG target sample using image3 simulations, in preparation (2024) .
- [45] R. Zhou et al., in preparation (2024) .
- [46] E. Chaussidon et al., Blinding scheme for local primordial non-gaussianity, in preparation (2024) .
- [47] D. Bianchi et al., Characterization of DESI fiber assignment incompleteness effect on 2-point clustering and mitigation methods for 2024 analysis, in preparation (2024) .
- [48] J. Lasker, A.C. Rosell, A.D. Myers, A.J. Ross, D. Bianchi, M.M.S. Hanif et al., Production of Alternate Realizations of DESI Fiber Assignment for Unbiased Clustering Measurement in Data and Simulations, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.03006 [2404.03006].
- [49] M. M. S Hanif et al., Fast Fiber Assign: Emulating fiber assignment effects for realistic DESI catalogs, in preparation (2024) .
- [50] M. Pinon et al., Mitigation of DESI fiber assignment incompleteness effect on two-point clustering with small angular scale truncated estimators, in preparation (2024) .
- [51] A. Krolewski et al., Impact and mitigation of spectroscopic systematics on DESI Y1 clustering, in preparation (2024) .
- [52] T.-W. Lan, R. Tojeiro, E. Armengaud, J.X. Prochaska, T.M. Davis, D.M. Alexander et al., The DESI Survey Validation: Results from Visual Inspection of Bright Galaxies, Luminous Red Galaxies, and Emission-line Galaxies, Astrophys. J. 943 (2023) 68 [2208.08516].
- [53] J. Yu, C. Zhao, V. Gonzalez-Perez, C.-H. Chuang, A. Brodzeller, A. de Mattia et al., The DESI One-Percent Survey: exploring a generalized SHAM for multiple tracers with the UNIT simulation, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527 (2024) 6950 [2306.06313].
- [54] Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [1807.06209].
- [55] A. Rocher, V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, E. Burtin, S. Yuan, A. de Mattia, A.J. Ross et al., The DESI One-Percent survey: exploring the Halo Occupation Distribution of Emission Line Galaxies with ABACUSSUMMIT simulations, JCAP 2023 (2023) 016 [2306.06319].
- [56] N.A. Maksimova, L.H. Garrison, D.J. Eisenstein, B. Hadzhiyska, S. Bose and T.P. Satterthwaite, ABACUSSUMMIT: a massive set of high-accuracy, high-resolution N-body simulations, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 508 (2021) 4017 [2110.11398].
- [57] D. Wadekar and R. Scoccimarro, Galaxy power spectrum multipoles covariance in perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 123517 [1910.02914].
- [58] M. Rashkovetskyi, D.J. Eisenstein, J.N. Aguilar, D. Brooks, T. Claybaugh, S. Cole et al., Validation of semi-analytical, semi-empirical covariance matrices for two-point correlation function for early DESI data, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524 (2023) 3894 [2306.06320].
- [59] H.A. Feldman, N. Kaiser and J.A. Peacock, Power-Spectrum Analysis of Three-dimensional Redshift Surveys, Astrophys. J. 426 (1994) 23 [astro-ph/9304022].
- [60] S.D. Landy and A.S. Szalay, Bias and Variance of Angular Correlation Functions, Astrophys. J. 412 (1993) 64.
- [61] M. Sinha and L.H. Garrison, CORRFUNC - a suite of blazing fast correlation functions on the CPU, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 491 (2020) 3022.
- [62] M. Sinha and L. Garrison, Corrfunc: Blazing fast correlation functions with avx512f simd intrinsics, in Software Challenges to Exascale Computing, A. Majumdar and R. Arora, eds., (Singapore), pp. 3–20, Springer Singapore, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7729-7_1.
- [63] K. Yamamoto, M. Nakamichi, A. Kamino, B.A. Bassett and H. Nishioka, A Measurement of the Quadrupole Power Spectrum in the Clustering of the 2dF QSO Survey, Pub. Astron. Soc. Japan 58 (2006) 93 [astro-ph/0505115].
- [64] N. Hand, Y. Li, Z. Slepian and U. Seljak, An optimal FFT-based anisotropic power spectrum estimator, JCAP 2017 (2017) 002 [1704.02357].
- [65] M. Maus, S. Chen, M. White, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, A. Aviles et al., An analysis of parameter compression and full-modeling techniques with Velocileptors for DESI 2024 and beyond, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.07312 [2404.07312].
- [66] H.E. Noriega, A. Aviles, H. Gil-Marín, S. Ramirez-Solano, S. Fromenteau, M. Vargas-Magaña et al., Comparing Compressed and Full-modeling Analyses with FOLPS: Implications for DESI 2024 and beyond, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.07269 [2404.07269].
- [67] Y. Lai, C. Howlett, M. Maus, H. Gil-Marín, H.E. Noriega, S. Ramírez-Solano et al., A comparison between Shapefit compression and Full-Modelling method with PyBird for DESI 2024 and beyond, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.07283 [2404.07283].
- [68] S. Ramirez-Solano, M. Icaza-Lizaola, H.E. Noriega, M. Vargas-Magaña, S. Fromenteau, A. Aviles et al., Full Modeling and Parameter Compression Methods in configuration space for DESI 2024 and beyond, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.07268 [2404.07268].
- [69] D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram, The cosmic linear anisotropy solving system (class). part ii: Approximation schemes, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2011 (2011) 034.
- [70] A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby, Efficient computation of cosmic microwave background anisotropies in closed friedmann-robertson-walker models, The Astrophysical Journal 538 (2000) 473.
- [71] S. Brieden, H. Gil-Marín and L. Verde, ShapeFit: extracting the power spectrum shape information in galaxy surveys beyond BAO and RSD, JCAP 2021 (2021) 054 [2106.07641].
- [72] K.S. Dawson, D.J. Schlegel, C.P. Ahn, S.F. Anderson, É. Aubourg, S. Bailey et al., THE BARYON OSCILLATION SPECTROSCOPIC SURVEY OF SDSS-III, Astron. J. 145 (2012) 10.
- [73] D.J. Eisenstein, D.H. Weinberg, E. Agol, H. Aihara, C. Allende Prieto, S.F. Anderson et al., SDSS-III: Massive Spectroscopic Surveys of the Distant Universe, the Milky Way, and Extra-Solar Planetary Systems, Astron. J. 142 (2011) 72 [1101.1529].
- [74] A.J. Ross, W.J. Percival, A.G. Sánchez, L. Samushia, S. Ho, E. Kazin et al., The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: analysis of potential systematics, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 424 (2012) 564 [1203.6499].
- [75] K.S. Dawson, J.-P. Kneib, W.J. Percival, S. Alam, F.D. Albareti, S.F. Anderson et al., THE SDSS-IV EXTENDED BARYON OSCILLATION SPECTROSCOPIC SURVEY: OVERVIEW AND EARLY DATA, Astron. J. 151 (2016) 44.
- [76] M.R. Blanton, M.A. Bershady, B. Abolfathi, F.D. Albareti, C. Allende Prieto, A. Almeida et al., Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV: Map** the Milky Way, Nearby Galaxies, and the Distant Universe, Astron. J. 154 (2017) 28 [1703.00052].
- [77] J.E. Bautista, M. Vargas-Magaña, K.S. Dawson, W.J. Percival, J. Brinkmann, J. Brownstein et al., The SDSS-IV Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations at Redshift of 0.72 with the DR14 Luminous Red Galaxy Sample, Astrophys. J. 863 (2018) 110 [1712.08064].
- [78] H. Gao, Y.P. **g, Y. Zheng and K. Xu, Constructing the Emission-line Galaxy-Host Halo Connection through Auto and Cross Correlations, Astrophys. J. 928 (2022) 10 [2111.11657].
- [79] M. Colless, G. Dalton, S. Maddox, W. Sutherland, P. Norberg, S. Cole et al., The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: spectra and redshifts, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 328 (2001) 1039 [astro-ph/0106498].
- [80] P. Zarrouk, E. Burtin, H. Gil-Marín, A.J. Ross, R. Tojeiro, I. Pâris et al., The clustering of the SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey DR14 quasar sample: measurement of the growth rate of structure from the anisotropic correlation function between redshift 0.8 and 2.2, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 477 (2018) 1639 [1801.03062].
- [81] A.J. Ross, J. Bautista, R. Tojeiro, S. Alam, S. Bailey, E. Burtin et al., The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Large-scale structure catalogues for cosmological analysis, Mon. Nat. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498 (2020) 2354 [2007.09000].
- [82] A. Brodzeller, K. Dawson, S. Bailey, J. Yu, A.J. Ross, A. Bault et al., Performance of the Quasar Spectral Templates for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, Astron. J. 166 (2023) 66 [2305.10426].
- [83] D.M. Alexander, T.M. Davis, E. Chaussidon, V.A. Fawcett, A. X. Gonzalez-Morales, T.-W. Lan et al., The DESI Survey Validation: Results from Visual Inspection of the Quasar Survey Spectra, Astron. J. 165 (2023) 124 [2208.08517].