Paper detail

Sample variance in photometric redshift calibration: cosmological biases and survey requirements

We use N-body/photometric galaxy simulations to examine the impact of sample variance of spectroscopic redshift samples on the accuracy of photometric redshift (photo-z) determination and calibration of photo-z errors. We estimate the biases in the cosmological parameter constraints from weak lensing and derive requirements on the spectroscopic follow-up for three different photo-z algorithms chosen to broadly span the range of algorithms available. We find that sample variance is much more relevant for the photo-z error calibration than for photo-z training, implying that follow-up requirements are similar for different algorithms. We demonstrate that the spectroscopic sample can be used for training of photo-zs and error calibration without incurring additional bias in the cosmological parameters. We provide a guide for observing proposals for the spectroscopic follow-up to ensure that redshift calibration biases do not dominate the cosmological parameter error budget. For example, assuming optimistically (pessimistically) that the weak lensing shear measurements from the Dark Energy Survey could obtain 1-sigma constraints on the dark energy equation of state w of 0.035 (0.055), implies a follow-up requirement of 150 (40) patches of sky with a telescope such as Magellan, assuming a 1/8^2 deg effective field of view and 400 galaxies per patch. Assuming (optimistically) a VVDS-like spectroscopic completeness with purely random failures, this could be accomplished with about 75 (20) nights of observation. For more realistic assumptions regarding spectroscopic completeness, or in the presence of other sources of systematics not considered here, further degradations to dark energy constraints are possible. We test several approaches for reducing the requirements. Abridged

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.