Cited by 97Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchStellar, planetary, and galactic studies

Photometric Redshifts with the LSST: Evaluating Survey Observing Strategies

Open access
Graham, Melissa L., Connolly, Andrew J., Ivezić, Željko, Schmidt, Samuel J., Jones, R. Lynne, Jurić, Mario, Daniel, Scott F., Yoachim, Peter·2018·The Astronomical Journal

Abstract

In this paper we present and characterize a nearest-neighbors color-matching photometric redshift estimator that features a direct relationship between the precision and accuracy of the input magnitudes and the output photometric redshifts. This aspect makes our estimator an ideal tool for evaluating the impact of changes to LSST survey parameters that affect the measurement errors of the photometry, which is the main motivation of our work (i.e., it is not intended to provide the “best” photometric redshifts for LSST data). We show how the photometric redshifts will improve with time over the 10 year LSST survey and confirm that the nominal distribution of visits per filter provides the most accurate photo-z results. The LSST survey strategy naturally produces observations over a range of airmass, which offers the opportunity of using an SED- and z-dependent atmospheric affect on the observed photometry as a color-independent redshift indicator. We show that measuring this airmass effect and including it as a prior has the potential to improve the photometric redshifts and can ameliorate extreme outliers, but that it will only be adequately measured for the brightest galaxies, which limits its overall impact on LSST photometric redshifts. We furthermore demonstrate how this airmass effect can induce a bias in the photo-z results, and caution against survey strategies that prioritize high-airmass observations for the purpose of improving this prior. Ultimately, we intend for this work to serve as a guide for the expectations and preparations of the LSST science community with regard to the minimum quality of photo-z as the survey progresses.

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 · 10.3847/1538-3881/aa99d4

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Requiring more training data than currently exists to define the template set degrades the expected σ/(1+z) to about 0.05, which is still within the expected range for a Stage IV dark energy experiment.

    “The degradation in photometric redshift quality associated with requiring more training data than currently exists to de fi ne the template set increases the expected σ / ( 1 + z ) to ∼ 0.05 ( e.g., Newman et al. 2015; Graham et al. 2018 ) , which is still well within the expected range for a Stage IV dark energy experiment.”

    From LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products (2019) · cites this paper as Graham et al. 2018

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Baum, W. A. 1962, in IAU Symp. 15, Problems of Extra-Galactic Research, ed. G. C. McVittie (New York: Macmillan Press), 390
  2. LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration 2012, arXiv:1211.0310 · arXiv
  3. LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009, arXiv:0912.0201 · arXiv
  4. LSST Science Collaboration, Marshall, P., Anguita, T., et al. 2017, arXiv:1708. 04058
  5. Tanaka, M., Coupon, J., Hsieh, B.-C., et al. 2017, arXiv:1704.05988 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Graham, M. L., Connolly, A. J., Ivezić, Ž., Schmidt, S. J., Jones, R. L., Jurić, M., Daniel, S. F., & Yoachim, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Venue
The Astronomical Journal
Published
2017-12-07
Volume
155
Issue
1
Pages
1
ISSN
  • 0004-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-3881
OpenAlex
W2732984264
Cited by
95
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astronomical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1258333, DE-AC02-76SF00515)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (76SF00515, DE–AC02–76SF00515, AC02‐76SF00515, DESC0011635, DE-AC02-)
  • Washington Research Foundation
  • University of Washington
  • Office of Science (AC02-76SF00515, DE-AC02, 76SF00515)
  • SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (DEAC02−76SF00515, AC02‐76SF00515)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Astronomy and Astrophysical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Keywords
photometric redshifts, spectral energy distribution, photometric redshift bias

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