The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of Photometric Redshift Uncertainties on Weak‐Lensing Tomography
Open accessAbstract
We perform a systematic analysis of the effects of photometric redshift uncertainties on weak-lensing tomography. We describe the photo- z distribution with a bias and Gaussian scatter that are allowed to vary arbitrarily between intervals of δ z = 0.1 in redshift. While the mere presence of bias and scatter does not substantially degrade dark energy information, uncertainties in both parameters do. For a fiducial next-generation survey each would need to be known to better than about 0.003-0.01 in redshift for each interval in order to lead to less than a factor of 1.5 increase in the dark energy parameter errors. The more stringent requirement corresponds to a larger dark energy parameter space, when redshift variation in the equation of state of dark energy is allowed. Of order 10 4 -10 5 galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts fairly sampled from the source galaxy distribution will be needed to achieve this level of calibration. If the sample is composed of multiple galaxy types, a fair sample would be required for each. These requirements increase in stringency for more ambitious surveys; we quantify such scalings with a convenient fitting formula. No single aspect of a photometrically binned selection of galaxies such as their mean or median suffices, indicating that dark energy parameter determinations are sensitive to the shape and nature of outliers in the photo- z redshift distribution.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., Komatsu, E., Nolta, M. R., Bennett, C. L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G., Jarosik, N., Kogut, A., et al. (2003) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.1086/377226 · Cited by 10,976
Cited by
Heymans, C., Grocutt, E., Heavens, A., Kilbinger, M., Kitching, T. D., Simpson, F., Benjamin, J., Erben, T., Hildebrandt, H., Hoekstra, H., et al. (2013) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt601 · Cited by 649
Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review
Kilbinger, M. (2015) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/0034-4885/78/8/086901 · Cited by 604
Bridle, S., & King, L. (2007) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/12/444 · Cited by 492
Calibrating Redshift Distributions beyond Spectroscopic Limits with Cross‐Correlations
Newman, J. A. (2008) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/589982 · Cited by 285
Growth of cosmic structure: Probing dark energy beyond expansion
Huterer, D., Kirkby, D., Bean, R., Connolly, A., Dawson, K., Dodelson, S., Evrard, A., Jain, B., Jarvis, M., Linder, E., et al. (2015) · Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.07.004 · Cited by 143
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ma, Z., Hu, W., & Huterer, D.
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 636
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-29
- ISSN
- 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4357
- OpenAlex
- W2131605443
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.13
- 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: Effects of Photometric Redshift Uncertainties on Weak‐Lensing Tomography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/497068
- The paper
- Ma, Z., Hu, W., & Huterer, D. (2006). Effects of Photometric Redshift Uncertainties on Weak‐Lensing Tomography. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1086/497068
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.