Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,186

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Bayesian Photometric Redshift Estimation

Open access
Benitez, Narciso·2000·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

Photometric redshifts are quickly becoming an essential tool of observational cosmology, although their utilization is somewhat hindered by certain shortcomings of the existing methods, e.g., the unreliability of maximum-likelihood techniques or the limited application range of the "training-set" approach. The application of Bayesian inference to the problem of photometric redshift estimation effectively overcomes most of these problems. The use of prior probabilities and Bayesian marginalization facilitates the inclusion of relevant knowledge, such as the expected shape of the redshift distributions and the galaxy type fractions, which can be readily obtained from existing surveys but are often ignored by other methods. If this previous information is lacking or insufficient—for instance, because of the unprecedented depth of the observations—the corresponding prior distributions can be calibrated using even the data sample for which the photometric redshifts are being obtained. An important advantage of Bayesian statistics is that the accuracy of the redshift estimation can be characterized in a way that has no equivalents in other statistical approaches, enabling the selection of galaxy samples with extremely reliable photometric redshifts. In this way, it is possible to determine the properties of individual galaxies more accurately, and simultaneously estimate the statistical properties of a sample in an optimal fashion. Moreover, the Bayesian formalism described here can be easily generalized to deal with a wide range of problems that make use of photometric redshifts. There is excellent agreement between the ≈130 Hubble Deep Field North (HDF-N) spectroscopic redshifts and the predictions of the method, with a rms error of Δ z ≈ 0.06(1 + z spec ) up to z < 6 and no outliers nor systematic biases. It should be remarked that since these results have not been reached following a training-set procedure, the above value of Δ z should be a fair estimate of the expected accuracy for any similar sample. The method is further tested by estimating redshifts in the HDF-N but restricting the color information to the UBVI filters; the results are shown to be significantly more reliable than those obtained with maximum-likelihood techniques.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/308947

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,186

Metadata

Authors
Benitez, N.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2000-06-20
Volume
536
Issue
2
Pages
571-583
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2093437356
Cited by
1,186
References
0
FWCI
11.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bayesian Photometric Redshift Estimation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/308947
The paper
Benitez, N. (2000). Bayesian Photometric Redshift Estimation. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1086/308947

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.