skip to main content
DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Spectroscopic Needs for Imaging Dark Energy Experiments

Abstract

Ongoing and near-future imaging-based dark energy experiments are critically dependent upon photometric redshifts (a.k.a. photo-z’s): i.e., estimates of the redshifts of objects based only on flux information obtained through broad filters. Higher-quality, lower-scatter photo-z’s will result in smaller random errors on cosmological parameters; while systematic errors in photometric redshift estimates, if not constrained, may dominate all other uncertainties from these experiments. The desired optimization and calibration is dependent upon spectroscopic measurements for secure redshift information; this is the key application of galaxy spectroscopy for imaging-based dark energy experiments. Hence, to achieve their full potential, imaging-based experiments will require large sets of objects with spectroscopically-determined redshifts, for two purposes: Training: Objects with known redshift are needed to map out the relationship between object color and z (or, equivalently, to determine empirically-calibrated templates describing the rest-frame spectra of the full range of galaxies, which may be used to predict the color-z relation). The ultimate goal of training is to minimize each moment of the distribution of differences between photometric redshift estimates and the true redshifts of objects, making the relationship between them as tight as possible. The larger and more complete our “training set” of spectroscopic redshifts is, the smaller the RMSmore » photo-z errors should be, increasing the constraining power of imaging experiments; Requirements: Spectroscopic redshift measurements for ~30,000 objects over >~15 widely-separated regions, each at least ~20 arcmin in diameter, and reaching the faintest objects used in a given experiment, will likely be necessary if photometric redshifts are to be trained and calibrated with conventional techniques. Larger, more complete samples (i.e., with longer exposure times) can improve photo-z algorithms and reduce scatter further, enhancing the science return from planned experiments greatly (increasing the Dark Energy Task Force figure of merit by up to ~50%); Options: This spectroscopy will most efficiently be done by covering as much of the optical and near-infrared spectrum as possible at modestly high spectral resolution (λ/Δλ > ~3000), while maximizing the telescope collecting area, field of view on the sky, and multiplexing of simultaneous spectra. The most efficient instrument for this would likely be either the proposed GMACS/MANIFEST spectrograph for the Giant Magellan Telescope or the OPTIMOS spectrograph for the European Extremely Large Telescope, depending on actual properties when built. The PFS spectrograph at Subaru would be next best and available considerably earlier, c. 2018; the proposed ngCFHT and SSST telescopes would have similar capabilities but start later. Other key options, in order of increasing total time required, are the WFOS spectrograph at TMT, MOONS at the VLT, and DESI at the Mayall 4 m telescope (or the similar 4MOST and WEAVE projects); of these, only DESI, MOONS, and PFS are expected to be available before 2020. Table 2-3 of this white paper summarizes the observation time required at each facility for strawman training samples. To attain secure redshift measurements for a high fraction of targeted objects and cover the full redshift span of future experiments, additional near-infrared spectroscopy will also be required; this is best done from space, particularly with WFIRST-2.4 and JWST; Calibration: The first several moments of redshift distributions (the mean, RMS redshift dispersion, etc.), must be known to high accuracy for cosmological constraints not to be systematics-dominated (equivalently, the moments of the distribution of differences between photometric and true redshifts could be determined instead). The ultimate goal of calibration is to characterize these moments for every subsample used in analyses - i.e., to minimize the uncertainty in their mean redshift, RMS dispersion, etc. – rather than to make the moments themselves small. Calibration may be done with the same spectroscopic dataset used for training if that dataset is extremely high in redshift completeness (i.e., no populations of galaxies to be used in analyses are systematically missed). Accurate photo-z calibration is necessary for all imaging experiments; Requirements: If extremely low levels of systematic incompleteness (<~0.1%) are attained in training samples, the same datasets described above should be sufficient for calibration. However, existing deep spectroscopic surveys have failed to yield secure redshifts for 30–60% of targets, so that would require very large improvements over past experience. This incompleteness would be a limiting factor for training, but catastrophic for calibration. If <~0.1% incompleteness is not attainable, the best known option for calibration of photometric redshifts is to utilize cross-correlation statistics in some form. The most direct method for this uses cross-correlations between positions on the sky of bright objects of known spectroscopic redshift with the sample of objects that we wish to calibrate the redshift distribution for, measured as a function of spectroscopic z. For such a calibration, redshifts of ~100,000 objects over at least several hundred square degrees, spanning the full redshift range of the samples used for dark energy, would be necessary; and Options: The proposed BAO experiment eBOSS would provide sufficient spectroscopy for basic calibrations, particularly for ongoing and near-future imaging experiments. The planned DESI experiment would provide excellent calibration with redundant cross-checks, but will start after the conclusion of some imaging projects. An extension of DESI to the Southern hemisphere would provide the best possible calibration from cross-correlation methods for DES and LSST. We thus anticipate that our two primary needs for spectroscopy – training and calibration of photometric redshifts – will require two separate solutions. For ongoing and future projects to reach their full potential, new spectroscopic samples of faint objects will be needed for training; those new samples may be suitable for calibration, but the latter possibility is uncertain. In contrast, wide-area samples of bright objects are poorly suited for training, but can provide high-precision calibrations via cross-correlation techniques. Additional training/calibration redshifts and/or host galaxy spectroscopy would enhance the use of supernovae and galaxy clusters for cosmology. We also summarize additional work on photometric redshift techniques that will be needed to prepare for data from ongoing and future dark energy experiments.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [6];  [7];  [8];  [9];  [10];  [11];  [12];  [13];  [14];  [14];  [15];  [16];  [17];  [18];  [19] more »;  [3];  [20];  [21];  [22];  [3];  [23];  [24];  [24];  [25];  [26];  [27];  [28];  [29];  [30];  [29];  [31];  [32];  [33];  [34];  [24];  [35];  [30];  [36];  [1];  [37];  [38];  [39];  [37];  [40];  [36];  [41];  [42];  [43];  [44];  [4];  [45];  [46];  [45];  [47];  [6];  [1];  [1] « less
  1. Univ. of Pittsburgh and PITT PACC, PA (United States). Dept of Physics and Astronomy
  2. Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Upton, NY (United States)
  3. Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ (United States)
  4. Univ. College London (United Kingdom)
  5. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), Batavia, IL (United States)
  6. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC), Menlo Park, CA (United States)
  7. LAL Univ. Paris-Sud, Orsay (France)
  8. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
  9. Univ. of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND (United States)
  10. National Optical Astronomy Observations, Tucson, AZ (United States)
  11. New York Univ., NY (United States)
  12. Univ. of Missouri at Kansas City, Kansas City, MO (United States)
  13. Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT (United States)
  14. Illinois Univ., Urbana, IL (United States)
  15. Inst. Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares (ININ), Escandon (Mexico)
  16. Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ (United States)
  17. Australian National Univ., Canberra (Australia). Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics
  18. Campus of International Excellence UAM and CSIC, Madrid (Spain)
  19. Univ. of Geneva (Switzerland). Astronomical Observatory
  20. Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA (United States). Kavli Inst. for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology
  21. UNAM, Mexico City (Mexico). Dept. de Fisica Teorica and Inst. Avanzado de Cosmologia
  22. Brown Univ., Providence, RI (United States)
  23. State Univ. of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ (United States)
  24. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, MD (United States)
  25. Penn State Univ., University Park, PA (United States)
  26. York Univ., Toronto, ON (Canada)
  27. Yale Univ., New Haven, CT (United States)
  28. Argelander-Inst. fuer Astronomie, Bonn (Germany)
  29. Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH (United States)
  30. Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, PA (United States). McWilliams Center for Cosmology
  31. Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (United States)
  32. Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA (United States)
  33. Laboratoire d'Astrophysique, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) (Swizerland)
  34. France
  35. Univ. College London, Bloomsbury (United Kingdom)
  36. Texas A and M Univ., College Station, TX (United States)
  37. Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, MD (United States)
  38. Univ. Autonoma de Barcelona (Spain). Inst. de Fisica d'Altes Energies (IFAE)
  39. Univ. Paris-Sud, Orsay (France)
  40. Siena College, Loudonville, NY (United States)
  41. Univ. of Edinburgh (United Kingdom). Inst. for Astronomy, Royal Observatory
  42. Korea Inst. for Advanced Study, Seoul (Korea, Republic of)
  43. Jet Propulsion Lab./Caltech, Pasadena, CA (United States)
  44. Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie Grenoble (France)
  45. Univ. of California, Davis, CA (United States)
  46. California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Pasadena, CA (United States)
  47. Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Brookhaven National Lab. (BNL), Upton, NY (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), High Energy Physics (HEP)
OSTI Identifier:
1172078
Alternate Identifier(s):
OSTI ID: 1250277
Report Number(s):
BNL-107334-2015-JA
Journal ID: ISSN 0927-6505; KA2301020; TRN: US1500481
Grant/Contract Number:  
DE-SC00112704
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Astroparticle Physics
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 63; Journal ID: ISSN 0927-6505
Publisher:
Elsevier
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS; Cosmology; Dark energy

Citation Formats

Newman, Jeffrey A., Slosar, Anze, Abate, Alexandra, Abdalla, Filipe B., Allam, Sahar, Allen, Steven W., Ansari, Reza, Bailey, Stephen, Barkhouse, Wayne A., Beers, Timothy C., Blanton, Michael R., Brodwin, Mark, Brownstein, Joel R., Brunner, Robert J., Carrasco-Kind, Matias, Cervantes-Cota, Jorge, Chisari, Nora Elisa, Colless, Matthew, Comparat, Johan, Coupon, Jean, Cheu, Elliott, Cunha, Carlos E., de la Macorra, Alex, Dell’Antonio, Ian P., Frye, Brenda L., Gawiser, Eric J., Gehrels, Neil, Grady, Kevin, Hagen, Alex, Hall, Patrick B., Hearin, Andrew P., Hildebrandt, Hendrik, Hirata, Christopher M., Ho, Shirley, Honscheid, Klaus, Huterer, Dragan, Ivezic, Zeljko, Kneib, Jean -Paul, de Marseille, Laboratoire d'Astrophysique, Kruk, Jeffrey W., Lahav, Ofer, Mandelbaum, Rachel, Marshall, Jennifer L., Matthews, Daniel J., Menard, Brice, Miquel, Ramon, Moniez, Marc, Moos, H. W., Moustakas, John, Papovich, Casey, Peacock, John A., Park, Changbom, Rhodes, Jason, Ricol, Jean-Stepane, Sadeh, Iftach, Schmidt, Samuel J., Stern, Daniel K., Tyson, J. Anthony, von der Linden, Anja, Wechsler, Risa H., Wood-Vasey, W. M., and Zentner, A.. Spectroscopic Needs for Imaging Dark Energy Experiments. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.06.007.
Newman, Jeffrey A., Slosar, Anze, Abate, Alexandra, Abdalla, Filipe B., Allam, Sahar, Allen, Steven W., Ansari, Reza, Bailey, Stephen, Barkhouse, Wayne A., Beers, Timothy C., Blanton, Michael R., Brodwin, Mark, Brownstein, Joel R., Brunner, Robert J., Carrasco-Kind, Matias, Cervantes-Cota, Jorge, Chisari, Nora Elisa, Colless, Matthew, Comparat, Johan, Coupon, Jean, Cheu, Elliott, Cunha, Carlos E., de la Macorra, Alex, Dell’Antonio, Ian P., Frye, Brenda L., Gawiser, Eric J., Gehrels, Neil, Grady, Kevin, Hagen, Alex, Hall, Patrick B., Hearin, Andrew P., Hildebrandt, Hendrik, Hirata, Christopher M., Ho, Shirley, Honscheid, Klaus, Huterer, Dragan, Ivezic, Zeljko, Kneib, Jean -Paul, de Marseille, Laboratoire d'Astrophysique, Kruk, Jeffrey W., Lahav, Ofer, Mandelbaum, Rachel, Marshall, Jennifer L., Matthews, Daniel J., Menard, Brice, Miquel, Ramon, Moniez, Marc, Moos, H. W., Moustakas, John, Papovich, Casey, Peacock, John A., Park, Changbom, Rhodes, Jason, Ricol, Jean-Stepane, Sadeh, Iftach, Schmidt, Samuel J., Stern, Daniel K., Tyson, J. Anthony, von der Linden, Anja, Wechsler, Risa H., Wood-Vasey, W. M., & Zentner, A.. Spectroscopic Needs for Imaging Dark Energy Experiments. United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.06.007
Newman, Jeffrey A., Slosar, Anze, Abate, Alexandra, Abdalla, Filipe B., Allam, Sahar, Allen, Steven W., Ansari, Reza, Bailey, Stephen, Barkhouse, Wayne A., Beers, Timothy C., Blanton, Michael R., Brodwin, Mark, Brownstein, Joel R., Brunner, Robert J., Carrasco-Kind, Matias, Cervantes-Cota, Jorge, Chisari, Nora Elisa, Colless, Matthew, Comparat, Johan, Coupon, Jean, Cheu, Elliott, Cunha, Carlos E., de la Macorra, Alex, Dell’Antonio, Ian P., Frye, Brenda L., Gawiser, Eric J., Gehrels, Neil, Grady, Kevin, Hagen, Alex, Hall, Patrick B., Hearin, Andrew P., Hildebrandt, Hendrik, Hirata, Christopher M., Ho, Shirley, Honscheid, Klaus, Huterer, Dragan, Ivezic, Zeljko, Kneib, Jean -Paul, de Marseille, Laboratoire d'Astrophysique, Kruk, Jeffrey W., Lahav, Ofer, Mandelbaum, Rachel, Marshall, Jennifer L., Matthews, Daniel J., Menard, Brice, Miquel, Ramon, Moniez, Marc, Moos, H. W., Moustakas, John, Papovich, Casey, Peacock, John A., Park, Changbom, Rhodes, Jason, Ricol, Jean-Stepane, Sadeh, Iftach, Schmidt, Samuel J., Stern, Daniel K., Tyson, J. Anthony, von der Linden, Anja, Wechsler, Risa H., Wood-Vasey, W. M., and Zentner, A.. Sun . "Spectroscopic Needs for Imaging Dark Energy Experiments". United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.06.007. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1172078.
@article{osti_1172078,
title = {Spectroscopic Needs for Imaging Dark Energy Experiments},
author = {Newman, Jeffrey A. and Slosar, Anze and Abate, Alexandra and Abdalla, Filipe B. and Allam, Sahar and Allen, Steven W. and Ansari, Reza and Bailey, Stephen and Barkhouse, Wayne A. and Beers, Timothy C. and Blanton, Michael R. and Brodwin, Mark and Brownstein, Joel R. and Brunner, Robert J. and Carrasco-Kind, Matias and Cervantes-Cota, Jorge and Chisari, Nora Elisa and Colless, Matthew and Comparat, Johan and Coupon, Jean and Cheu, Elliott and Cunha, Carlos E. and de la Macorra, Alex and Dell’Antonio, Ian P. and Frye, Brenda L. and Gawiser, Eric J. and Gehrels, Neil and Grady, Kevin and Hagen, Alex and Hall, Patrick B. and Hearin, Andrew P. and Hildebrandt, Hendrik and Hirata, Christopher M. and Ho, Shirley and Honscheid, Klaus and Huterer, Dragan and Ivezic, Zeljko and Kneib, Jean -Paul and de Marseille, Laboratoire d'Astrophysique and Kruk, Jeffrey W. and Lahav, Ofer and Mandelbaum, Rachel and Marshall, Jennifer L. and Matthews, Daniel J. and Menard, Brice and Miquel, Ramon and Moniez, Marc and Moos, H. W. and Moustakas, John and Papovich, Casey and Peacock, John A. and Park, Changbom and Rhodes, Jason and Ricol, Jean-Stepane and Sadeh, Iftach and Schmidt, Samuel J. and Stern, Daniel K. and Tyson, J. Anthony and von der Linden, Anja and Wechsler, Risa H. and Wood-Vasey, W. M. and Zentner, A.},
abstractNote = {Ongoing and near-future imaging-based dark energy experiments are critically dependent upon photometric redshifts (a.k.a. photo-z’s): i.e., estimates of the redshifts of objects based only on flux information obtained through broad filters. Higher-quality, lower-scatter photo-z’s will result in smaller random errors on cosmological parameters; while systematic errors in photometric redshift estimates, if not constrained, may dominate all other uncertainties from these experiments. The desired optimization and calibration is dependent upon spectroscopic measurements for secure redshift information; this is the key application of galaxy spectroscopy for imaging-based dark energy experiments. Hence, to achieve their full potential, imaging-based experiments will require large sets of objects with spectroscopically-determined redshifts, for two purposes: Training: Objects with known redshift are needed to map out the relationship between object color and z (or, equivalently, to determine empirically-calibrated templates describing the rest-frame spectra of the full range of galaxies, which may be used to predict the color-z relation). The ultimate goal of training is to minimize each moment of the distribution of differences between photometric redshift estimates and the true redshifts of objects, making the relationship between them as tight as possible. The larger and more complete our “training set” of spectroscopic redshifts is, the smaller the RMS photo-z errors should be, increasing the constraining power of imaging experiments; Requirements: Spectroscopic redshift measurements for ~30,000 objects over >~15 widely-separated regions, each at least ~20 arcmin in diameter, and reaching the faintest objects used in a given experiment, will likely be necessary if photometric redshifts are to be trained and calibrated with conventional techniques. Larger, more complete samples (i.e., with longer exposure times) can improve photo-z algorithms and reduce scatter further, enhancing the science return from planned experiments greatly (increasing the Dark Energy Task Force figure of merit by up to ~50%); Options: This spectroscopy will most efficiently be done by covering as much of the optical and near-infrared spectrum as possible at modestly high spectral resolution (λ/Δλ > ~3000), while maximizing the telescope collecting area, field of view on the sky, and multiplexing of simultaneous spectra. The most efficient instrument for this would likely be either the proposed GMACS/MANIFEST spectrograph for the Giant Magellan Telescope or the OPTIMOS spectrograph for the European Extremely Large Telescope, depending on actual properties when built. The PFS spectrograph at Subaru would be next best and available considerably earlier, c. 2018; the proposed ngCFHT and SSST telescopes would have similar capabilities but start later. Other key options, in order of increasing total time required, are the WFOS spectrograph at TMT, MOONS at the VLT, and DESI at the Mayall 4 m telescope (or the similar 4MOST and WEAVE projects); of these, only DESI, MOONS, and PFS are expected to be available before 2020. Table 2-3 of this white paper summarizes the observation time required at each facility for strawman training samples. To attain secure redshift measurements for a high fraction of targeted objects and cover the full redshift span of future experiments, additional near-infrared spectroscopy will also be required; this is best done from space, particularly with WFIRST-2.4 and JWST; Calibration: The first several moments of redshift distributions (the mean, RMS redshift dispersion, etc.), must be known to high accuracy for cosmological constraints not to be systematics-dominated (equivalently, the moments of the distribution of differences between photometric and true redshifts could be determined instead). The ultimate goal of calibration is to characterize these moments for every subsample used in analyses - i.e., to minimize the uncertainty in their mean redshift, RMS dispersion, etc. – rather than to make the moments themselves small. Calibration may be done with the same spectroscopic dataset used for training if that dataset is extremely high in redshift completeness (i.e., no populations of galaxies to be used in analyses are systematically missed). Accurate photo-z calibration is necessary for all imaging experiments; Requirements: If extremely low levels of systematic incompleteness (<~0.1%) are attained in training samples, the same datasets described above should be sufficient for calibration. However, existing deep spectroscopic surveys have failed to yield secure redshifts for 30–60% of targets, so that would require very large improvements over past experience. This incompleteness would be a limiting factor for training, but catastrophic for calibration. If <~0.1% incompleteness is not attainable, the best known option for calibration of photometric redshifts is to utilize cross-correlation statistics in some form. The most direct method for this uses cross-correlations between positions on the sky of bright objects of known spectroscopic redshift with the sample of objects that we wish to calibrate the redshift distribution for, measured as a function of spectroscopic z. For such a calibration, redshifts of ~100,000 objects over at least several hundred square degrees, spanning the full redshift range of the samples used for dark energy, would be necessary; and Options: The proposed BAO experiment eBOSS would provide sufficient spectroscopy for basic calibrations, particularly for ongoing and near-future imaging experiments. The planned DESI experiment would provide excellent calibration with redundant cross-checks, but will start after the conclusion of some imaging projects. An extension of DESI to the Southern hemisphere would provide the best possible calibration from cross-correlation methods for DES and LSST. We thus anticipate that our two primary needs for spectroscopy – training and calibration of photometric redshifts – will require two separate solutions. For ongoing and future projects to reach their full potential, new spectroscopic samples of faint objects will be needed for training; those new samples may be suitable for calibration, but the latter possibility is uncertain. In contrast, wide-area samples of bright objects are poorly suited for training, but can provide high-precision calibrations via cross-correlation techniques. Additional training/calibration redshifts and/or host galaxy spectroscopy would enhance the use of supernovae and galaxy clusters for cosmology. We also summarize additional work on photometric redshift techniques that will be needed to prepare for data from ongoing and future dark energy experiments.},
doi = {10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.06.007},
journal = {Astroparticle Physics},
number = ,
volume = 63,
place = {United States},
year = {2015},
month = {3}
}

Journal Article:

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 23 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

A comparison of six photometric redshift methods applied to 1.5 million luminous red galaxies: Photometric redshifts for 1.5 million LRGs
journal, September 2011


Characterizing and Propagating Modeling Uncertainties in Photometrically Derived Redshift Distributions
journal, May 2011


The Gemini Deep Deep Survey. I. Introduction to the Survey, Catalogs, and Composite Spectra
journal, May 2004

  • Abraham, Roberto G.; Glazebrook, Karl; McCarthy, Patrick J.
  • The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 127, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1086/383557

The Ninth data Release of the Sloan Digital sky Survey: First Spectroscopic data from the Sdss-Iii Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey
journal, November 2012

  • Ahn, Christopher P.; Alexandroff, Rachael; Allende Prieto, Carlos
  • The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, Vol. 203, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21

LOWER BOUNDS ON PHOTOMETRIC REDSHIFT ERRORS FROM TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA TEMPLATES
journal, March 2010


Redshift-independent Distances to Type Ia Supernovae
journal, August 2004

  • Barris, Brian J.; Tonry, John L.
  • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 613, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1086/424871

Catastrophic photometric redshift errors: weak-lensing survey requirements
journal, January 2010


Bayesian Photometric Redshift Estimation
journal, June 2000

  • Benitez, Narciso
  • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 536, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1086/308947

Measuring Baryon Acoustic Oscillations Along the line of Sight with Photometric Redshifts: the pau Survey
journal, January 2009


K -Corrections and Filter Transformations in the Ultraviolet, Optical, and Near-Infrared
journal, January 2007

  • Blanton, Michael R.; Roweis, Sam
  • The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 133, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1086/510127

Photo- z performance for precision cosmology - II. Empirical verification 1★
journal, February 2012


A Unified Framework for Photometric Redshifts
journal, April 2009


TPZ: photometric redshift PDFs and ancillary information by using prediction trees and random forests
journal, May 2013

  • Carrasco Kind, Matias; Brunner, Robert J.
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 432, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt574

Sparse representation of photometric redshift probability density functions: preparing for petascale astronomy
journal, May 2014

  • Carrasco Kind, Matias; Brunner, Robert J.
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 441, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu827

Evolution and Color Dependence of the Galaxy Angular Correlation Function: 350,000 Galaxies in 5 Square Degrees
journal, December 2004

  • Coil, Alison L.; Newman, Jeffrey A.; Kaiser, Nick
  • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 617, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1086/425676

The Prism Multi-Object Survey (Primus). i. Survey Overview and Characteristics
journal, October 2011

  • Coil, Alison L.; Blanton, Michael R.; Burles, Scott M.
  • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 741, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/8

ANN z : Estimating Photometric Redshifts Using Artificial Neural Networks
journal, April 2004

  • Collister, Adrian A.; Lahav, Ofer
  • Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 116, Issue 818
  • DOI: 10.1086/383254

Investigating emission-line galaxy surveys with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey infrastructure
journal, October 2012

  • Comparat, Johan; Kneib, Jean-Paul; Escoffier, Stephanie
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 428, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sts127

The DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey: the relationship between galaxy properties and environment at z  1
journal, July 2006


Estimating the redshift distribution of photometric galaxy samples - II. Applications and tests of a new method
journal, July 2009


Sample variance in photometric redshift calibration: cosmological biases and survey requirements: Sample variance in photo-z calibration
journal, April 2012

  • Cunha, Carlos E.; Huterer, Dragan; Busha, Michael T.
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 423, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20927.x

A Critical Assessment of Photometric Redshift Methods: a Candels Investigation
journal, September 2013


The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey of Sdss-Iii
journal, December 2012

  • Dawson, Kyle S.; Schlegel, David J.; Ahn, Christopher P.
  • The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 145, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10

Using Cross Correlations to Calibrate Lensing Source Redshift Distributions: Improving Cosmological Constraints from Upcoming weak Lensing Surveys
journal, December 2013


Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): survey diagnostics and core data release: GAMA
journal, March 2011


The Vimos VLT deep survey: Global properties of 20 000 galaxies in the
journal, June 2008


COSMOLOGY WITH PHOTOMETRIC SURVEYS OF TYPE Ia SUPERNOVAE
journal, January 2010


A new method to improve photometric redshift reconstruction: Applications to the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope
journal, January 2014


A General Study of the Influence of Catastrophic Photometric Redshift Errors on Cosmology with Cosmic Shear Tomography
journal, August 2010


Testing the origin of the CMB large-angle correlation deficit with a galaxy imaging survey
journal, October 2011

  • Hearin, Andrew P.; Gibelyou, Cameron; Zentner, Andrew R.
  • Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Vol. 2011, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/10/012

General requirements on matter power spectrum predictions for cosmology with weak lensing tomography
journal, April 2012

  • Hearin, Andrew P.; Zentner, Andrew R.; Ma, Zhaoming
  • Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Vol. 2012, Issue 04
  • DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/034

PHAT: PHoto- z Accuracy Testing
journal, November 2010


Systematic errors in future weak-lensing surveys: requirements and prospects for self-calibration
journal, February 2006


Accurate photometric redshifts for the CFHT legacy survey calibrated using the VIMOS VLT deep survey
journal, September 2006


Colour tomography
journal, March 2007

  • Jain, Bhuvnesh; Connolly, Andrew; Takada, Masahiro
  • Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Vol. 2007, Issue 03
  • DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2007/03/013

Designing future dark energy space missions: I. Building realistic galaxy spectro-photometric catalogs and their first applications
journal, July 2009


Systematic effects on dark energy from 3D weak shear
journal, September 2008


PHOTOMETRIC ESTIMATES OF REDSHIFTS AND DISTANCE MODULI FOR TYPE Ia SUPERNOVAE
journal, June 2010


Correlated supernova systematics and ground based surveys
journal, June 2011


The VIRMOS deep imaging survey: I. Overview, survey strategy, and CFH12K observations
journal, March 2004


The VIMOS VLT deep survey: First epoch VVDS-deep survey: 11 564 spectra with 17.5 
journal, August 2005


zCOSMOS: A Large VLT/VIMOS Redshift Survey Covering 0 < z < 3 in the COSMOS Field
journal, September 2007

  • Lilly, S. J.; Fevre, O. Le; Renzini, A.
  • The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, Vol. 172, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1086/516589

THE zCOSMOS 10k-BRIGHT SPECTROSCOPIC SAMPLE
journal, September 2009

  • Lilly, Simon J.; Le Brun, Vincent; Maier, Christian
  • The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, Vol. 184, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/184/2/218

Estimating the redshift distribution of photometric galaxy samples
journal, October 2008


Effects of Photometric Redshift Uncertainties on Weak‐Lensing Tomography
journal, January 2006

  • Ma, Zhaoming; Hu, Wayne; Huterer, Dragan
  • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 636, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1086/497068

Size of Spectroscopic Calibration Samples for Cosmic Shear Photometric Redshifts
journal, July 2008

  • Ma, Zhaoming; Bernstein, Gary
  • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 682, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1086/588214

Precision photometric redshift calibration for galaxy–galaxy weak lensing
journal, May 2008


Giga- z : A 100,000 OBJECT SUPERCONDUCTING SPECTROPHOTOMETER FOR LSST FOLLOW-UP
journal, August 2013

  • Marsden, Danica W.; Mazin, Benjamin A.; O’Brien, Kieran
  • The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, Vol. 208, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/8

Reconstructing Redshift Distributions with Cross-Correlations: Tests and an Optimized Recipe
journal, August 2010


Measuring the Cosmic Equation of State with Counts of Galaxies. II. Error Budget for the DEEP2 Redshift Survey
journal, January 2002

  • Newman, Jeffrey A.; Davis, Marc
  • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 564, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1086/324148

Calibrating Redshift Distributions beyond Spectroscopic Limits with Cross‐Correlations
journal, September 2008

  • Newman, Jeffrey A.
  • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 684, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1086/589982

The Deep2 Galaxy Redshift Survey: Design, Observations, data Reduction, and Redshifts
journal, August 2013

  • Newman, Jeffrey A.; Cooper, Michael C.; Davis, Marc
  • The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, Vol. 208, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/5

Contribution to the Theory of Sampling Human Populations
journal, March 1938


A Clipping Method to Mitigate the Impact of Catastrophic Photometric Redshift Errors on weak Lensing Tomography
journal, July 2010


Photometric Redshift Error Estimators
journal, December 2008

  • Oyaizu, Hiroaki; Lima, Marcos; Cunha, Carlos E.
  • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 689, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1086/592591

Nonlinear Dimensionality Reduction by Locally Linear Embedding
journal, December 2000


PHOTOMETRIC TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA CANDIDATES FROM THE THREE-YEAR SDSS-II SN SURVEY DATA
journal, August 2011


Using Galaxy Two‐Point Correlation Functions to Determine the Redshift Distributions of Galaxies Binned by Photometric Redshift
journal, November 2006

  • Schneider, Michael; Knox, Lloyd; Zhan, Hu
  • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 651, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1086/507675

A reliable cluster detection technique using photometric redshifts: introducing the 2TecX algorithm
journal, June 2009


Reducing the Dimensionality of Data: Locally Linear Embedding of Sloan Galaxy Spectra
journal, September 2009


A Model-independent Photometric Redshift Estimator for Type Ia Supernovae
journal, December 2006

  • Wang, Yun
  • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 654, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1086/511008

Survey requirements for accurate and precise photometric redshifts for Type Ia supernovae
journal, November 2007


Observational probes of cosmic acceleration
journal, September 2013


Spectral Classification of Quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Eigenspectra, Redshift, and Luminosity Effects
journal, December 2004

  • Yip, C. W.; Connolly, A. J.; Vanden Berk, D. E.
  • The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 128, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1086/425626

Galaxy Clustering in the Completed sdss Redshift Survey: the Dependence on Color and Luminosity
journal, July 2011


UTILIZING TYPE Ia SUPERNOVAE IN A LARGE, FAST, IMAGING SURVEY TO CONSTRAIN DARK ENERGY
journal, March 2009


Cosmic tomographies: baryon acoustic oscillations and weak lensing
journal, August 2006


Baryon Oscillations and Consistency Tests for Photometrically Determined Redshifts of Very Faint Galaxies
journal, June 2006

  • Zhan, Hu; Knox, Lloyd
  • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 644, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1086/503622

On using angular cross-correlations to determine source redshift distributions
journal, July 2013

  • McQuinn, M.; White, M.
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 433, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt914

    Works referencing / citing this record:

    Calibrating photometric redshifts with intensity mapping observations
    journal, August 2017


    ANNz2: Photometric Redshift and Probability Distribution Function Estimation using Machine Learning
    journal, August 2016


    Reconstructing large-scale structure with neutral hydrogen surveys
    journal, November 2019

    • Modi, Chirag; White, Martin; Slosar, Anže
    • Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Vol. 2019, Issue 11
    • DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/023

    Galaxy–Galaxy lensing in HSC: Validation tests and the impact of heterogeneous spectroscopic training sets
    journal, October 2019

    • Speagle, Joshua S.; Leauthaud, Alexie; Huang, Song
    • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 490, Issue 4
    • DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stz2968

    The many flavours of photometric redshifts
    journal, June 2018


    Photometric redshifts for the Kilo-Degree Survey: Machine-learning analysis with artificial neural networks
    journal, August 2018


    LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products
    journal, March 2019

    • Ivezić, Željko; Kahn, Steven M.; Tyson, J. Anthony
    • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 873, Issue 2
    • DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    The DEIMOS 10K Spectroscopic Survey Catalog of the COSMOS Field
    journal, May 2018


    Optimizing galaxy samples for clustering measurements in photometric surveys
    journal, November 2019

    • Tanoglidis, Dimitrios; Chang, Chihway; Frieman, Joshua
    • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 491, Issue 3
    • DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stz3281

    KiDS-450: cosmological parameter constraints from tomographic weak gravitational lensing
    journal, November 2016

    • Hildebrandt, H.; Viola, M.; Heymans, C.
    • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 465, Issue 2
    • DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw2805

    Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: cross-correlation redshifts – methods and systematics characterization
    journal, February 2018

    • Gatti, M.; Vielzeuf, P.; Davis, C.
    • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 477, Issue 2
    • DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty466

    Estimating redshift distributions using hierarchical logistic Gaussian processes
    journal, November 2019

    • Rau, Markus Michael; Wilson, Simon; Mandelbaum, Rachel
    • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 491, Issue 4
    • DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stz3295

    Mapping the Galaxy Color–Redshift Relation: Optimal Photometric Redshift Calibration Strategies for Cosmology Surveys
    journal, October 2015


    Photometric Redshift Calibration Requirements for WFIRST Weak-lensing Cosmology: Predictions from CANDELS
    journal, June 2019

    • Hemmati, Shoubaneh; Capak, Peter; Masters, Daniel
    • The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 877, Issue 2
    • DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1be5

    KiDS-450: the tomographic weak lensing power spectrum and constraints on cosmological parameters
    journal, July 2017

    • Köhlinger, F.; Viola, M.; Joachimi, B.
    • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 471, Issue 4
    • DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx1820

    Scientific Synergy between LSST and Euclid
    journal, December 2017

    • Rhodes, Jason; Nichol, Robert C.; Aubourg, Éric
    • The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, Vol. 233, Issue 2
    • DOI: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa96b0

    Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV: Mapping the Milky Way, Nearby Galaxies, and the Distant Universe
    journal, June 2017

    • Blanton, Michael R.; Bershady, Matthew A.; Abolfathi, Bela
    • The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 154, Issue 1
    • DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567