1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %
3: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
4:
5: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
6:
7: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
8:
9: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
10:
11: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.~}}
12: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
13: \newcommand{\bpz}{{\it BPZ}}
14: \newcommand{\sed}{{\it SED}}
15: \newcommand{\odds}{{\it ODDS}}
16: \newcommand{\sn}{{S/N}}
17: \newcommand{\dls}{{DLS}}
18: \newcommand{\zp}{{z_{\rm phot}}}
19: \newcommand{\zs}{{z_{\rm spec}}}
20: \newcommand{\zi}{{z_{\rm input}}}
21: \newcommand{\dz}{{\Delta z}}
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \title{Photometric Redshifts and Signal-to-Noise}
26:
27: \author{V. E. Margoniner\altaffilmark{1} and D. M. Wittman\altaffilmark{1}}
28:
29: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, University of California at
30: Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616}
31:
32: \begin{abstract}
33:
34: We investigate the impact of photometric signal-to-noise (\sn) on the
35: precision of photometric redshifts in multi-band imaging surveys,
36: using both simulations and real data. We simulate the optical 4-band
37: (BVRz) Deep Lens Survey (\dls, Wittman \etal 2002), and use the
38: publicly available Bayesian Photometric Redshift code \bpz~ by Benitez
39: (2000). The simulations include a realistic range of magnitudes and
40: colors and vary from infinite S/N to $S/N=5$. The real data are from
41: DLS photometry and two spectroscopic surveys, and explore a range of
42: S/N by adding noise to initially very high S/N photometry. Precision
43: degrades steadily as S/N drops, both because of direct S/N effects and
44: because lower S/N is linked to fainter galaxies with a weaker
45: magnitude prior. If a simple S/N cut were used, $S/N\ge 17$ in
46: R (corresponding, in the DLS, to lower S/N in other bands) would be
47: required to keep the scatter in $\dz\equiv {\zs - \zp \over 1 + \zs}$
48: to less than 0.1. However, cutting on ODDS (a measure of the
49: peakiness of the probability density function provided by BPZ) greater
50: than 0.4 provides roughly double the number of usable galaxies with
51: the same $\sigma_{\dz}$. Ellipticals form the tightest $\zs-\zp$
52: relation, and cutting on type=elliptical provides better precision
53: than the $ODDS>0.9$ cut, but this eliminates the vast majority of
54: galaxies in a deep survey. In addition to being more efficient than a
55: type cut, ODDS also has the advantages of working with all types of
56: galaxies (although ellipticals are overrepresented) and of being a
57: continuous parameter for which the severity of the cut can be
58: adjusted as desired.
59:
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62: \keywords{ galaxies: distances and redshift --- galaxies: photometry --- methods: data analysis --- surveys}
63:
64: \section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
65:
66: Photometric redshifts (Connolly \etal~1995, Hogg \etal~1998, Benitez
67: 2000) are of paramount importance for current and planned multi-band
68: imaging surveys. With photometric redshifts, surveys can
69: inexpensively gather information about structure along the line of
70: sight, without resorting to expensive spectroscopic followup.
71: Therefore, it is important to understand systematic errors and
72: limitations in this method. For example, Ma \etal~2006 and Huterer
73: \etal~2006 have examined the required photometric redshift accuracy
74: for surveys which plan to use weak lensing (cosmic shear) to constrain
75: dark energy. For this application and also for baryon acoustic
76: oscillations (Zhan \& Knox 2006), reducing photometric redshift errors
77: is less important than knowing the error distribution accurately.
78: Thus, careful attention must be paid to systematic differences between
79: the photometric survey and the spectroscopic sample used to evaluate
80: photometric redshift performance. For most surveys, photometric S/N
81: is one of the systematic differences.
82:
83: The most well-known test case for photometric redshifts is the blind
84: test in the Hubble Deep Field North (HDFN) conducted by Hogg \etal\
85: (1998). The best methods then yielded $\sigma_{\dz}\sim0.1$, where
86: $\dz\equiv {\zs - \zp \over 1 + \zs}$, using Hubble Space Telescope
87: (HST) photometry in UBVI bands and ground JHK (Dickinson ~1998). More
88: recently, with improved photometry and spectral redshift
89: classification, an accuracy of $\sigma\dz\sim0.06$ is achieved over
90: the redshift range 0---6 (Fernandez-Soto \etal~1999, 2001; Benitez
91: 2000). Ground-based surveys suffer from less precise photometry but
92: usually do not have to deal with such a large redshift range. Ilbert
93: \etal~2007 cite an accuracy of $\sigma_{\dz} = 0.029$ after clipping
94: outliers with $\dz>0.15$ (3.8\% of the sample). Ilbert \etal~2007
95: also find a decrease in precision at fainter magnitudes, but made no
96: effort to separate the effects of S/N from the other effects operating
97: on faint galaxies, such as a weaker magnitude prior and greater SED
98: evolution. In this paper, we examine the impact of these effects
99: separately, focusing on photometric S/N.
100: %We use both simulations and
101: %a real spectroscopic dataset much larger than that of the HDF.
102: The quantitative results presented here are specific to the BVRz
103: filter set used in the Deep Lens Survey (\dls, Wittman \etal~2002).
104: More filters, covering a wider range in wavelengths, will do better
105: (Abdalla \etal~2007). However, the trends with S/N are broadly
106: applicable.
107:
108:
109: \section{Method}\label{method}
110:
111: We use the \bpz~ Bayesian photometric redshift code developed by
112: Benitez (2000). We also tested the HyperZ code (Bolzonella \etal\
113: 2000) with additional priors roughly equivalent to the default BPZ
114: priors, and found similar performance. For clarity we present only
115: results from BPZ here. We did not test training-set methods, in which
116: a spectroscopic and photometric training set is used to perform a fit
117: or to train a neural network, for two reasons. First, training set
118: methods are unlikely to be employed for surveys planning to push the
119: photometric sample deeper than the spectroscopic sample. Second, the
120: two methods seem to be roughly equivalent in performance on the data
121: sets in which they have been compared (e.g. Hogg \etal~1998), so the
122: trends presented here should be applicable to both methods.
123:
124: We use the six spectral energy distribution (\sed) templates from
125: Benitez (2000): E, Sbc, Scd, Irr, SB3, and SB2, modified as described
126: below. For the simulations, the same templates are used to simulate
127: the photometry and to infer the photometric redshifts; there is no
128: allowance for cosmic variance of the templates or ``template noise''.
129: For the data, it is important that the templates reflect real SEDs.
130: Therefore, we use the photometry of objects with spectroscopic
131: redshifts to optimize the templates (Csabai \etal~2000; Benitez
132: \etal~2004; Ilbert \etal~2007). Section~\ref{tempopt} describes the
133: procedure and shows the corrected templates. Clearly, even the
134: optimized templates do not represent all types of SEDs in the
135: universe. For both simulations and data, we start by demonstrating the
136: performance with as nearly perfect a data set as possible. After
137: illustrating the best-case scenarios, we proceed to degrade the
138: simulations and data to successively lower S/N, repeating the analysis
139: for each step.
140:
141: For each galaxy, we identify the peak of its redshift probability
142: density function (PDF) as its {\it photometric redshift} or $z_{\rm
143: phot}$. This greatly simplifies the analysis and presentation of the
144: results, at the cost of some precision. Specifically, ``catastrophic
145: outliers'' will appear, whose $z_{\rm phot}$ differs greatly from
146: their true redshift. In many cases, this may be an artifact of not
147: considering the full PDF, a point argued forcefully in the case of the
148: HDF by Fernandez-Soto
149: \etal (2001, 2002). The full PDF may contain additional peaks, or
150: otherwise be broad enough to be consistent with the true redshift. In
151: this paper, we wish to focus on the trends with photometric S/N rather
152: than the characterization of outliers. As will be seen in the tables
153: and figures, the trends with S/N are not substantively changed if
154: ``outliers'' are removed. Therefore we judge this simplification to
155: be acceptable. ``Outlier'' in this paper thus refers to difference
156: between $z_{\rm phot}$ and true redshift, without implying anything
157: about the full PDF.
158:
159: We do consider characteristics of the PDF when using BPZ's ODDS
160: parameter. BPZ assumes a natural error (template noise) of
161: $0.067(1+z)$, and defines ODDS as the fraction of the area enclosed by
162: the PDF between $zphot\pm n\times0.067(1+z)$, where $n$ is a
163: user-settable parameter which we set to 1. ODDS values close to unity
164: indicate that most of the area under the redshift probability density
165: function (PDF) is within $Z_B\pm0.067(1+z)$. In this paper, we
166: present results both for the entirety of a given sample, and after a
167: cut of $ODDS>0.9$, which eliminates many of the ``outliers.'' We
168: also investigate the tradeoff between ODDS cut, number of usable
169: galaxies, and photometric redshift accuracy.
170:
171: The error distributions are typically non-Gaussian, often highly so.
172: The rms or standard deviation is extremely sensitive to even a few
173: non-Gaussian events, so in the photometric redshift literature,
174: results are usually quoted as an rms after excluding a certain (small)
175: fraction of galaxies as ``catastrophic outliers.'' The fraction
176: varies from paper to paper, making comparison difficult. The field of
177: robust statistics suggests several less sensitive metrics of
178: variation, such as the median or mean absolute deviation. However,
179: outliers {\it should} be included in the performance analysis with
180: some weight, because they will be included when using the entire
181: photometric sample for science. We therefore clip conservatively,
182: $|\dz|<0.5$, to avoid overly optimistic results. This threshold
183: is at least five, and usually many more, times the clipped rms. We
184: also present, in many cases, differential and cumulative distributions
185: as well. To make the connection with forecasts for, say, weak lensing
186: tomography, we suggest these distributions be fit with double
187: Gaussians. Gaussians are analytically tractable, and a double
188: Gaussian can fit both the core and wings (but not truly catastrophic
189: outliers).
190:
191: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
192: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
193:
194: \section{Simulations}\label{simulations}
195:
196: We simulate a mix of ellipticals, spirals, irregulars and starburst
197: galaxies (specifically, E, Sbc, Scd, Irr, SB3, and SB2 templates)
198: following the priors for galaxy type fraction as a function of
199: magnitude, $P(T|m_0)$, and for the redshift distribution for galaxies
200: of a given spectral type and magnitude, $P(z|T,m_0)$, that are used in
201: \bpz 's Bayesian photometric redshift code.
202: We found that in Table 1 of Benitez (2000), two numbers were
203: inadvertently switched, but the numbers were correct in the publicly
204: downloadable code. Benitez (private communication) has confirmed that
205: the table should read $k_t=0.450$ for E/SO and $k_t=0.147$ for
206: Sbc/Scd. Figure~\ref{fig-priors} shows in solid red lines the priors
207: used in this paper (same as \bpz 's code); in dashed red lines are the
208: priors quoted in BPZ's paper; and green lines represent Ilbert
209: \etal~(2007) priors.
210:
211: In order to have a realistic galaxy luminosity function, $N(mag)$, we
212: start our simulations from R-band magnitudes of 87260 objects detected
213: in one of our $\sim40^{\prime}\times40^{\prime}$ Deep Lens Survey
214: sub-fields (Wittman \etal 2002). The typical BVRz magnitude
215: distributions for the DLS are shown in Figure~\ref{fig-nmagdls}. We
216: take this magnitude as the {\it true} ($\ne observed$) R-band
217: magnitude of a new object to be simulated. From the $P(T|m_0)$ prior
218: we select a \sed, and from $P(z|T,m_0)$ we choose a $\zi$ redshift for
219: the galaxy. The resulting ``true'' redshift distribution in the
220: simulations is shown in Figure~\ref{fig-nzinput}. This distribution
221: has a larger tail to high redshift than usually found in the
222: literature (e.g. LeFevre et al 2005) and can be approximately described
223: as $z^{2} exp\big(-1(\frac{z}{0.05})^{0.54}\big)$. Magnitudes (with or
224: without noise) in any other photometric bands can then be computed. We
225: use \bpz~itself to compute synthetic colors, so there is no issue of
226: minor differences in the k-corrections, priors, etc. We assume that
227: there are only six \sed `s of galaxies in the universe and make no
228: attempt to introduce template noise in these simulations. We then
229: perform three sets of simulations in the BVRz filter set of the
230: DLS. In the first simulation (SIM1) we assume perfect, infinite
231: \sn~photometry. In the second set of simulations (SIM2) we
232: successively degrade the \sn~ of the photometry but maintain constant
233: the \sn~of all galaxies in all 4 bands (same magnitude error for all
234: galaxies in all 4 bands). In the third simulation (SIM3), we reproduce
235: the \sn~distribution and completeness of the DLS.
236:
237: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
238:
239: \subsection{SIM1}\label{sim1}
240:
241: The first simulation (SIM1) has perfect photometry and represents the
242: best possible case. The $\zp-\zs$ scatter-plot for this simple
243: simulation is shown in Figure~\ref{fig-sim1}, and the distribution of
244: $\dz \equiv {\zs - \zp \over 1 + \zs}$ is shown in
245: Figure~\ref{fig-sim1dz}. Note that Figure~\ref{fig-sim1} contains
246: 87260 objects, distributed in redshift according to
247: Figure~\ref{fig-nzinput}, and that the $\zp=\zs$ line is saturated
248: with objects. It is clear from Figure~\ref{fig-sim1dz} that the
249: majority of objects have $|\dz|\sim0.0$. Table~\ref{tab:sim12}
250: indicates: (1) signal-to-noise of photometry (same in all bands); (2)
251: fraction of galaxies with $|\dz|<0.5$; (3) mean $\dz$ for galaxies
252: with $|\dz|<0.5$; (4) rms in $\dz$ for galaxies with $|\dz|<0.5$; (5)
253: fraction of objects with $ODDS>0.9$; (6) fraction of objects with
254: $ODDS>0.9$ and $|\dz|<0.5$; (7) mean $\dz$; and (8) rms in $\dz$ for
255: these galaxies.
256:
257: There are still catastrophic outliers, despite being the best possible
258: case in terms of noise, perfectly known templates, etc. This is
259: because each galaxy is assigned a single $\zp$ based on the peak of
260: its PDF. Consider a degeneracy such that the same colors come from
261: \sed~ A at $z_1$ or \sed~ B at $z_2$. In the absence of priors, this
262: would result in a PDF with two equal peaks. Now add priors encoding
263: our astrophysical knowledge, such as that an apparently bright galaxies
264: are likely to be at low redshift, or that ellipticals are rare at high
265: redshift. This usually helps select the correct peak, but sometimes
266: it will select the wrong peak because unlikely events do happen: some
267: high-redshift galaxies are bright, or are ellipticals. As noted
268: above, this ignores the full PDF, which may be broad or multi-modal in
269: a way that is consistent with the true redshift. As our purpose is
270: only to establish SIM1 as a baseline for investigating the impact of
271: photometric S/N, we do not pursue this here.
272:
273: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
274:
275: \subsection{SIM2}\label{sim2}
276:
277: In the second set of simulations (SIM2) we degrade the initially
278: perfect photometry in SIM1 successively to \sn~ of 250 ($R\sim20.5^m$
279: in the DLS, and the magnitude limit of the spectroscopic sample
280: presented in Section \ref{data}), 100, 60, 30, 10 and 5, and repeat
281: the analysis at each step. In these unrealistic simulations all
282: galaxies have the same photometric \sn~ in all bands. The
283: scatter-plots are shown in Figure~\ref{fig-sim2}, and $\dz$
284: distributions are shown in Figure~\ref{fig-sim2dz}. We also present
285: the cumulative fraction of objects with $\dz$ smaller than a given
286: value, as a function of $\dz$ (Figure~\ref{fig-sim2frac}). This plot
287: has several advantages. First, multiple simulations can be
288: over-plotted without obscuration. Second, the asymmetry in the
289: distribution of $\dz$ is easily read off by looking at the fraction
290: with $\dz<0$ (dashed vertical line). Third, the fraction of outliers
291: can also be directly read off the plot at any $\dz$. The left panel of
292: Figure~\ref{fig-sim2frac} shows the cumulative fraction for all
293: objects, while the right panel shows $ODDS>0.9$ galaxies. The number
294: of galaxies in the right panel is smaller than the number in the left
295: (see Table~\ref{tab:sim12}) but the accuracy of photo-zs is clearly
296: better.
297:
298: Because all realizations of SIM2 have the redshift distribution shown
299: in Figure~\ref{fig-nzinput}, even if all galaxies have colors measured
300: at very high \sn~, some objects will have degenerate colors and the
301: sample will contain some fraction of catastrophic
302: outliers. Spectroscopic samples typically have a much lower mean
303: redshift than these simulations, so catastrophic outliers are likely to
304: be underrepresented in direct $\zp-\zs$ comparisons, if the full
305: photometric sample is very deep.
306:
307: Table~\ref{tab:sim12} presents the statistics for the SIM2 objects
308: shown in Figures~\ref{fig-sim2}, ~\ref{fig-sim2dz} and
309: ~\ref{fig-sim2frac}. Clearly, the precision of photometric redshifts
310: is a strong function of photometric \sn. BPZ's ODDS parameter is very
311: effective at removing outliers, and almost 100\% of the objects with
312: $ODDS>0.9$ have $|\dz|<0.1$ regardless of \sn~(right panel in
313: Figure~\ref{fig-sim2frac}). However, the fraction of objects with
314: $ODDS>0.9$ decreases dramatically with decreasing \sn.
315:
316: Performance is, counter-intuitively, slightly worse for the infinite
317: S/N galaxies in SIM1 than for the high S/N galaxies in SIM2. This is
318: because the priors have too much power when there is no noise in color
319: space, and is not of concern in more realistic situations.
320:
321: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
322:
323: \subsection{SIM3}\label{sim3}
324:
325: The third simulation has the same \sn~ distribution and completeness as
326: the DLS data. Again, the priors used assure that the galaxy type
327: mixture and redshift distribution should be close to the real
328: universe. The idea is to measure how well we can recover true $\zi$
329: redshifts for a realistic photometric data set. This simulation is
330: still optimistic because no template noise is added---we derive colors
331: from the same six templates used in the determination of photometric
332: redshifts. The effect of template noise will be presented in the real
333: data analysis in Section \ref{data}.
334:
335: As a sanity check we compare the BVz magnitude distributions of our
336: SIM3 simulation with the observed $N(mag)$ and find good
337: agreement. The R magnitude distribution is by definition the same
338: within the added photometric noise. We also compare the distribution
339: of BPZ galaxy types in DLS fields with the one derived from the SIM3
340: simulation and find very good agreement. Figure~\ref{fig-priors2}
341: shows the galaxy type fraction as a function of magnitude for two
342: $40^{\prime}\times40^{\prime}$ DLS fields. The field with the higher
343: fraction of ellipticals contains the richness class 2 galaxy cluster
344: Abell 781 at $z=0.298$ (``$+$''), and the other is a more typical
345: ``blank'' field (``$\times$''). The simulation input distribution is
346: indicated by solid circles, which by definition agree with the red
347: line, and the output BPZ types are indicated by open circles. SIM3 and
348: data show the same magnitude dependence.
349:
350: A third sanity check is a comparison between the redshift distribution
351: derived in SIM3 and $N(z)$ for the entire DLS survey.
352: Figure~\ref{fig-dlsnz} shows both distributions and also the input
353: redshift distribution used in the simulations (same as shown in
354: Figure~\ref{fig-nzinput}). The agreement is pretty good. The mean
355: density of galaxies with photometric redshifts of any quality is
356: $47/arcmin^2$ and $11\%$ of those objects have $ODDS>0.9$.
357:
358: The photometric redshift performance on SIM3 is shown on
359: Figures~\ref{fig-sim3}, ~\ref{fig-sim3dz} and~\ref{fig-sim3frac}, just
360: as in Figures~\ref{fig-sim2}, ~\ref{fig-sim2dz} and~\ref{fig-sim2frac}
361: for SIM2. The summary statistics for SIM3 are presented in
362: Table~\ref{tab:sim3}. As in SIM2, the precision of photometric
363: redshifts is a strong function of \sn, and ODDS does a good job of
364: cleaning up, at the cost of losing many low \sn~galaxies.
365:
366: There are two notable differences with SIM2. First, in SIM3, there is
367: a realistically strong correlation between high S/N and bright
368: magnitudes. A bright magnitude implies a strong prior (most bright
369: galaxies are at low redshift), whereas a faint galaxy has a weak prior
370: (it could be at any redshift). The high S/N galaxies in SIM2 were
371: (artificially) at all magnitudes, and therefore had generally looser
372: priors. Therefore, the highest S/N galaxies in SIM3 do better than
373: those in SIM2. We can see the effect of the tight priors directly by
374: comparing the $S/N=250$ line of Table ~\ref{tab:sim12}
375: ($\sigma_{\dz}=0.042$ after clipping 4\% which had $|\dz|>0.5$) with
376: that of Table~\ref{tab:sim3} ($\sigma_{\dz}=0.031$ with no need to
377: clip any outliers). This difference vanishes when low S/N galaxies
378: from SIM3 are included.
379:
380: In fact, the $S/N=5$ galaxies in SIM2 outperform the $S/N>5$ galaxies
381: in SIM3, despite the latter cut being only a lower bound. This is due
382: to the second salient difference between SIM2 and SIM3: A given S/N in
383: SIM2 describes {\it each} galaxy in {\it each} band. In SIM3, the S/N
384: varies with filter in a realistic way, and the cut applies to R band.
385: Most galaxies will have lower S/N in other bands. For $S/N=30$ in R,
386: the median $S/N$ in B, V, and z over the whole sample is 10, 18, and
387: 10 respectively.
388:
389: %The third difference between SIM2 and SIM3 is that in SIM2,
390: %$\sigma_{\dz}$ is extremely small ($\sim0.01$) after applying the ODDS
391: %cut. This is artificially good, because photometric calibration
392: %errors were not introduced and marginalized over as with SIM3. SIM3
393: %represents our best estimate of performance in the real DLS survey.
394:
395: What S/N is required for good photometric redshift performance?
396: First, consider performance without any ODDS cut. At each step in
397: Table~\ref{tab:sim3} from $S/N>100$ to $S/N>10$, there is a 30--50\%
398: increase in $\sigma_{\dz}$, so there is no natural breakpoint.
399: $\sigma_{\dz}$ appears to stop this dramatic growth when stepping down
400: from $S/N>10$ to $S/N>5$, but this is likely an artifact of clipping
401: at $|\dz|>0.5$, which is roughly three times the clipped rms at that
402: point. Even at $S/N>10$, $\sigma_{\dz}$ may be artificially low due to
403: clipping, as more than 10\% of galaxies were clipped. Most survey
404: users would find the precision offered by the $S/N>30$ cut acceptable,
405: but the $S/N>10$ cut unacceptable. If we set $\sigma_{\dz}=0.1$ as
406: the limit of acceptability, we find an S/N cut at 17 is required.
407:
408: Now consider using the ODDS cut at 0.9. $\sigma_{\dz}$ is always 0.04
409: or less, regardless of S/N. We suspect that for a given
410: $\sigma_{\dz}$, the ODDS cut will provide more galaxies than the S/N
411: cut, because ODDS responds to the properties of the color space as
412: well as to S/N. For example, high-precision S/N is not required if
413: the galaxy is in a distinctive region of color space. In addition,
414: ODDS can take proper account of different S/N in different bands,
415: which a simple S/N cut in R does not. We investigate this by finding
416: the ODDS cut which yields the same $\sigma_{\dz}$ as the $S/N>30$ cut
417: (0.076). We find that $ODDS>0.57$ is required, which yields 30\% of
418: all detected galaxies, vs. the 13\% yielded by the S/N cut.
419:
420: We repeat this procedure for $\sigma_{\dz}=0.1$. The required ODDS
421: cut is $>0.40$, yielding 45\% of all detected galaxies, while the
422: required S/N cut at 17 yields only 26\% of detected galaxies.
423:
424: These fractions can all be read off
425: Figure~\ref{fig-sim3snodds} which summarizes the results from
426: SIM3. The three left panels in Figure~\ref{fig-sim3snodds} show: (1)
427: the cumulative fraction of objects with \sn~greater than a given
428: value; (2) mean $\dz$; and (3) $\sigma_{\dz}$ for these objects. The
429: three right panels are the same but for a cut in $ODDS$.
430:
431: In short, we recommend an ODDS cut. We recognize that an ODDS cut is
432: not easy to incorporate into survey forecasts of the number of usable
433: galaxies. Detailed simulations for a given filter set and depth as a
434: function of wavelength must be performed. However, we hope that the
435: above numbers can serve as a rough guide for translation between
436: photometric redshift precision, S/N threshold, and number of usable
437: galaxies.
438:
439: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
440: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
441:
442: \section{Data}\label{data}
443:
444: We take photometric data from the \dls~BVRz full-depth images in
445: fields with spectroscopic redshifts from the {\it Smithsonian
446: Hectospec Lensing Survey} (SHeLS, Geller \etal\ 2005), and from the
447: {\it Caltech Faint Galaxy Redshift Survey} (CFGRS, Cohen \etal~1999)
448: surveys. Here, by definition, template noise is present. In Sections
449: \ref{shels} and \ref{cfgrs} we present the spectroscopic data and the
450: photometric redshift accuracy for these two samples, but before that
451: we present our methodology for color measurement (Section
452: \ref{colors}), and template optimization (Section \ref{tempopt}).
453:
454: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
455:
456: \subsection{Measuring Colors}\label{colors}
457:
458: We performed simulations to determine the best photometry method in
459: the face of different point-spread function (PSF) sizes in the
460: different filters. We added galaxies with De Vaucouleurs (elliptical)
461: and exponential disk (spirals) light profiles to the \dls~BVRz data
462: using standard IRAF-Artdata routines, ran SExtractor (Bertin \&
463: Arnouts 1996) and measured colors with many different types of
464: magnitudes. Figure~\ref{fig-magRmagerr} shows the results for
465: galaxies added to the R images. The B, V and z results are
466: qualitatively the same, but because of differences in \sn~and PSF
467: there is a shift in the magnitude axis, and slightly different
468: scatter. The left panels show the results using $MAG_{iso}$ and right
469: panels show $MAG_{auto}$. The top panels show the difference between
470: measured $MAG$ and input $MAG_{input}$. De Vaucoleurs galaxies are
471: measured to be $\sim0.15^m$ fainter than their true magnitudes both by
472: $MAG_{iso}$ and $MAG_{auto}$. The bottom panels show the distribution
473: of $(MAG-MAG_{input})/MAGerr$ as a function of magnitude. As noted by
474: Benitez \etal~(2004), $MAG_{auto}$ gives better results for
475: magnitudes, but for photometric redshifts we are interested in good
476: colors as deep as possible.
477:
478: Figures~\ref{fig-colorerr} and \ref{fig-cc}
479: show the distribution of {\it color} errors,
480: which, for photometric redshifts, are more important than magnitude
481: errors. Again, $MAG_{iso}$ is on the left and $MAG_{auto}$ on the
482: right. The systematic magnitude errors tend to cancel when
483: considering colors, and $MAG_{iso}$ is now slightly better. It is
484: important to note that the errors in magnitude errors are not driven
485: by faint galaxies, and that in fact the discrepancies between real and
486: estimated colors errors are significantly worse for bright
487: objects.
488: %Figure~\ref{fig-colors23} shows the cumulative fraction of
489: %objects with $\Delta_{COLOR}/COLORerr_{iso}$ for galaxies subdivided
490: %according to magnitude. Galaxies fainter than $23^m$ are represented
491: %by a short dashed line, while the cumulative fraction for brighter
492: %galaxies is shown by short-long dashed lines. As before, De
493: %Vaucouleurs are shown in red, and exponential disk galaxies are in
494: %green.
495:
496: In summary, $MAG_{iso}$ gives slightly more precise colors at a given
497: magnitude. This translates to more galaxies being detected above a
498: given S/N threshold, providing another benefit. However, for either
499: $MAG_{auto}$ or $MAG_{iso}$, the error estimates provided by
500: SExtractor are optimistic, especially at the bright end. The solid
501: lines in Figure~\ref{fig-frac} show the cumulative fraction of objects
502: as a function of magnitude and color error, normalized by the nominal
503: error from SExtractor. Much less than $68(95)\%$ of the galaxies have
504: actual errors within the nominal 1(2)$\sigma$ magnitude error. Actual
505: color errors are closer to nominal, but still optimistic. (Caveat:
506: unlike most real galaxies, the simulated galaxies had zero color.)
507: From this analysis we determine an ad hoc correction to the magnitude
508: errors estimated by SExtractor: we first multiply $MAGerr_{iso}$ by
509: $1.5$, and then add in quadrature an error of $0.02^m$. The dashed
510: lines in both panels of Figure~\ref{fig-frac} show the results of this
511: correction. This single correction puts the 68th and 95th percentiles
512: of all the color distributions in the correct place, with the
513: exception of the 68th percentile of $R-z$ color. This adjustment to
514: the magnitude errors should in principle depend on galaxy color, but
515: we found that variations about this correction made little difference
516: in the results.
517:
518: We performed all the real-data tests in this paper with both
519: $MAG_{iso}$ and $MAG_{auto}$. The differences in the results were
520: very minor, except that more galaxies were detected at a given S/N
521: with $MAG_{iso}$, and about 20\% more survived the ODDS cut with
522: $MAG_{iso}$. We therefore adopt $MAG_{iso}$ for the remainder of this
523: paper.
524:
525: Another factor to consider is the quality of the survey's photometric
526: calibration, which was determined by observations of standard stars in
527: Landolt's (1992) fields during photometric nights. The R and V DLS
528: bands are very similar to Landolt's filter transmissions and yield
529: accurate calibration. The DLS B-band however differs significantly
530: from Landolt's and requires a color term correction which decreases
531: the accuracy of calibration in this band. Also, the DLS z-band
532: photometry derived from Sloan Digital Sky Survey standards (Smith
533: \etal~2002) is also not as good as R and V. For this reason we add an
534: extra $0.01^m$ to the magnitude error measurements in B and z
535: bands.
536:
537: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
538:
539: \subsection{Template Optimization}\label{tempopt}
540:
541: We use spectroscopic redshifts and the DLS photometry to empirically
542: correct the \bpz~set of templates and to test our filter+instrument
543: response knowledge with the methodology described in Ilbert \etal
544: 2007. We find optimized templates for El, Sbc, Scd, Im, and SB3 \sed
545: s. The SB2 template was left unchanged because there were not enough
546: galaxies of this type to fit a correction. The biggest modifications
547: were found for the El \sed, which shows a less strong 4000\AA~ break
548: in the optimized template; and for the Sbc \sed, which has a stronger
549: 4000\AA~ break than in the original BPZ template (See
550: Figure~\ref{fig-seds}). Because most of our galaxies are at low
551: redshift, we cannot constrain the longest and shortest SED wavelengths
552: and therefore we force them to agree with the initial templates.
553:
554: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
555:
556: \subsection{Comparison with Spectroscopic Data: SHeLS Survey}\label{shels}
557:
558: The SHeLS survey has a limiting magnitude of $R=20.3$, so that the DLS
559: photometry, which is complete to about five magnitudes fainter, is
560: very high \sn. Being a bright magnitude-limited survey, SHeLS
561: contains overwhelmingly low-redshift ($z<0.6$) galaxies. However, our
562: subsample of 1,000 was chosen to provide a nearly uniform redshift
563: distribution so that characterization accuracy would be roughly
564: redshift-independent. At a given redshift, selection was random.
565:
566: We further cut the sample, requiring $\sn>100$ in the R band, and
567: excluding objects in exclusion zones around bright stars, or with
568: saturated pixels in any band, or with SExtractor $flags\ge4$
569: (compromised photometry). The final sample contains 860 galaxies.
570: The top left panels of Figures~\ref{fig-shelsdatasn} and
571: ~\ref{fig-shelsdatasndz} show the $\zp-\zs$ scatter-plot, and $\dz$
572: distribution for the maximum \sn~ photometry. The distribution of
573: galaxy types assigned by BPZ to this spectroscopic sample is in
574: agreement to the type distribution of all galaxies at $R=20\pm0.5^{m}$
575: in the entire DLS survey, suggesting that the spectroscopic sample is
576: representative of galaxies at this magnitude.
577:
578: The SHeLS sample is expected to show evidence of template noise and
579: have somewhat higher $\sigma_{\dz}$ than the bright end of SIM3, and
580: this is in fact observed. Objects with $\sn>100$ in SIM3 have
581: $\sigma_{\dz}=0.037$, and $89.4\%$ of the galaxies have $ODDS>0.9$
582: with $\sigma_{\dz}=0.026$. For the SHeLS survey, $\sigma_{\dz}=0.050$,
583: and $85.6\%$ have $ODDS>0.9$ with $\sigma_{\dz}=0.044$. The difference
584: suggests a template noise of $\sigma_{\dz}\sim0.035(1+z)$ which is
585: smaller than the $0.065(1+z)$ estimated by Fernandez-Soto \etal~(1999)
586: for galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field, but expected given the much
587: lower redshift of galaxies in the SHeLS survey.
588:
589: We now degrade the photometry successively to $\sn=100,60,30,10,5$ in
590: all bands. If a galaxy has, for example $\sn=50$ in the B band, its
591: magnitude and magnitude error are left unchanged in this band for the
592: simulations with $\sn=100$ and $\sn=60$, but noise is added to the
593: other ones. The $\zp-\zs$ scatter-plots are shown in
594: Figure~\ref{fig-shelsdatasn}. $\dz$ distributions are shown in
595: Figure~\ref{fig-shelsdatasndz}, and cumulative fraction as a function
596: of $\dz$ is shown in Figure~\ref{fig-shelsfrac}. Statistics in
597: different \sn~regimes are presented in Table~\ref{tab:shelsdata}.
598: The trends with S/N which were observed in the simulations are
599: reproduced here.
600:
601: Because the magnitude prior remains tight despite the \sn~degradation,
602: we observe lower $\sigma_{\dz}$ at the low \sn~end of the SHeLS
603: simulations than is observed for SIM2 at the same \sn. At $\sn=10$,
604: $\sigma_{\dz}=0.080$, and $8.3\%$ of galaxies in the SHeLS survey have
605: $ODDS>0.9$, while $\sigma_{\dz}=0.121$, and $6.4\%$ of the have
606: $ODDS>0.9$ for the SIM2 galaxies.
607:
608: The effectiveness of the ODDS cut is again evident. The fraction of
609: galaxies passing this cut at low S/N is less than in SIM3 because the
610: data here are uniformly at low S/N, whereas for SIM3 the given S/N is
611: a lower limit. The fraction with $ODDS>0.9$ at low S/N is more
612: directly comparable with, and more consistent with, the fractions in
613: SIM2, which were also at constant S/N.
614: %Only 2 galaxies have $ODDS>0.9$ in the $\sn=5$ simulation, and
615: %only 75 galaxies have $ODDS>0.9$ in the $\sn=10$ one.
616:
617: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
618:
619: \subsection{Comparison with Spectroscopic Data: CFGRS Survey}\label{cfgrs}
620:
621: The CFGRS (Cohen \etal~1999) survey is about $2^m$ deeper than SHeLS
622: and therefore the DLS photometry is not as high \sn. We select
623: galaxies with quality=1 (multiple spectral features, Cohen \etal~1999)
624: spectroscopic redshifts and divide the data in 2 equally sized
625: subsamples of 111 galaxies each: one with galaxies of photometric
626: $\sn(R)>106$, and another with $\sn(R)<106$. Note that the
627: signal-to-noise in the low
628: \sn~ sample is still fairly high, with 28 being the lowest value, and
629: a median of 69, but the difference in the quality of photometric
630: redshifts is clear. Figure~\ref{fig-cfgrs} shows the $\zp-\zs$
631: scatter-plot for the two sub-samples. For the high \sn~sample,
632: $\dz=0.027\pm0.084$, and $\dz=0.021\pm0.060$ if we exclude 1
633: catastrophic outlier with $|\dz|>0.5$. For the lower
634: \sn~sample, $\dz=0.033\pm0.166$, and $\dz=0.041\pm0.095$ if we exclude
635: 2 objects with $|\dz|>0.5$. However this includes the effect of
636: different redshift ranges. To isolate the
637: \sn~effect, we compute results using only galaxies between
638: $0.4<z<0.9$, where both samples have a significant density of sources.
639: For the high \sn~sample we find $\dz=0.020\pm0.056$, and for the lower
640: \sn~sample, we find $\dz=0.034\pm0.073$. No objects with $|\dz|>0.5$
641: are found in this redshift range.
642:
643:
644: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
645: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
646:
647: \section{Selection in Galaxy Type and Redshift Range}
648:
649: Figure~\ref{fig-priors2} suggests that faint Irr/SB2/SB3 galaxies are
650: often misclassified as Sbc/Scd. In this section we explore dependence
651: on type in more detail. Figures~\ref{fig-sim1typ},
652: ~\ref{fig-sim3typ}, and ~\ref{fig-datatyp} show the $\zp-\zs$
653: scatter-plot as a function of inferred \bpz~galaxy type ($T_B$) for
654: SIM1, SIM3, and the SHeLS galaxies respectively. Ellipticals form the
655: tightest relation, while the redshift of irregular galaxies show a
656: scatter more than twice as large. Figure~\ref{fig-sim3typ} shows that
657: some of the scatter in ellipticals must be due to misclassifications,
658: because there are no E-type galaxies at $z\sim3-4$ in the simulations.
659:
660: We look at type misclassification in SIM3 directly in
661: Figures~\ref{fig-types} and ~\ref{fig-typesall}. The left column of
662: panels shows the $T_B$ distribution for each of the true input types,
663: with the true type distribution overlaid like a diagonal matrix in red
664: to guide the eye. The right column of panels shows the true type
665: distribution for each of the inferred types, with the inferred type
666: distribution overlaid in red to guide the eye. The overall
667: distribution of inferred (true) types is shown by the unshaded
668: histogram which is repeated in each panel in the left (right) column.
669: Figures~\ref{fig-types} shows galaxies with $\sn\ge30$ or $R\le23$.
670: For example, the fourth panel down in the left column shows that
671: galaxies classified as $T_B=4$ (Irr), have in fact almost the same
672: probability of being of types 4, 5 or 6 (irregular or starburst).
673: Likewise, starburst galaxies tend to be misclassified at irregulars
674: even at high \sn.
675:
676: The types in decreasing order of reliability are E, Sbc, Scd, Irr,
677: SB3, and SB2. Type reliability translates to redshift reliability,
678: because type misclassification usually implies a large, if not
679: catastrophic, redshift error. These figures also demonstrate that
680: although the ODDS cut appears to lose many high high-redshift galaxies
681: and shrink the usable redshift range, in fact most of the
682: ``high-redshift'' galaxies lost were type misclassifications, and
683: therefore unreliable redshifts. Although the loss of these
684: ``high-redshift'' galaxies is painful if one wants as large a redshift
685: range as possible, it is necessary if one wants the sample to be
686: reliable.
687:
688: In Figure~\ref{fig-typesall} we extend the analysis to lower
689: \sn~galaxies, and include all ``detected'' galaxies. The
690: rate of misclassification is much higher. The insertion of these
691: objects in the sample creates new types of misclassification. For
692: example, a fraction of type 1 (E) galaxies is assigned $T_B=2$ and
693: vice-versa. Also, a significant fraction of types 4, 5, and 6
694: (irregular and starburst) are classified as types 2 or 3 (spirals).
695:
696: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
697: %-----------------------------------------------------------------%
698:
699: \section{Summary and Discussion}
700:
701: We have examined the dependence of photometric redshift performance on
702: photometric S/N, using both simulations and data. For concreteness,
703: we have used the DLS filter set, but the general trends should apply
704: to any filter set. As a reminder, SIM2 simulated galaxies at a range
705: of magnitudes drawn from the DLS photometry, but at a series of
706: constant S/N levels, while SIM3 strongly couples magnitude and S/N as
707: they are in the DLS photometry. Thus, {\it bright} is distinct from
708: {\it high S/N} in SIM2 and in the noise-augmented SHeLS data because
709: {\it bright} implies a more effective magnitude prior. An additional
710: distinction between SIM3 and the other cases is that in SIM3 a given
711: S/N cut is performed in R, and for most galaxies that implies a lower
712: S/N in the other bands. For SIM2 and noise-augmented SHeLS data, a
713: given S/N describes each galaxy in each filter.
714:
715: We therefore expect the smallest $\sigma_{\dz}$ for very high S/N in
716: SIM3, where the high S/N galaxies automatically have a tight magnitude
717: prior. This is what is observed, $\sigma_z=0.031$ (0.037) for
718: $S/N>250$ (100) in SIM3. Degeneracies in color space determine this
719: performance limit, which is therefore highly filter-set dependent.
720: However, it sets a baseline for what follows. At $S/N=100$ in the
721: SHeLS data, $\sigma_{\dz}$ is about 35\% larger than this baseline,
722: suggesting a cosmic variance or template noise component of
723: $\sigma_{\dz}=0.035(1+z)$. For SIM2, $\sigma_{\dz}$ is also about
724: 32\% larger than this baseline, presumably due to the looser magnitude
725: priors on average. The deeper the survey, the less effective the
726: magnitude prior, but performance is still quite good at this high S/N.
727:
728: From this baseline, lowering the S/N smoothly increases $\sigma_{\dz}$
729: in SIM3, by 30--50\% at each S/N step in Table~\ref{tab:sim3} until
730: $\sigma_{\dz}$ is no longer trustworthy due to the clipping at
731: $|\dz|>0.5$. SIM2 degrades a bit more slowly due to its higher
732: baseline $\sigma_{\dz}$. The noise-augmented SHeLS data degrades even
733: more slowly, because magnitude priors always remain tight. Although
734: $\sigma_{\dz}$ looks reasonably good even at $S/N=5$ for the degraded
735: SHeLS data, we expect SIM3 to be more representative of true
736: performance for this reason.
737:
738: %somewhat tighter at the lowest S/N because, unlike SIM3, each galaxy
739: %has that S/N in {\it each} filter. This is enough to overcome the
740: %opposing effect that no galaxy in SIM2 has {\it more} than the labeled
741: %S/N.
742:
743: SIM3 indicates that without an ODDS cut, $S/N=17$ in R is likely to be
744: the lowest acceptable S/N for reasonable photometric redshift
745: performance ($\sigma_{\dz}=0.1$) in a survey with the DLS
746: specifications (filter set and depth). A shallower survey may be able
747: to go to lower S/N because the magnitude prior remains helpful to
748: lower S/N in such a survey. In fact, the bright spectroscopic sample
749: has $\sigma_{\dz}<0.1$ even at $S/N=5$, although we caution that this
750: means $S/N=5$ in {\it each} filter. If we impose an ODDS cut rather
751: than an S/N cut, $ODDS>0.40$ cut yields twice as many galaxies for the
752: same $\sigma_{\dz}$ as the $S/N>17$ cut in R. Alternatively, survey
753: users could use ODDS to decrease $\sigma_{\dz}$ while sacrificing
754: galaxy counts; an $ODDS>0.9$ cut yields $\sigma_{\dz}=0.04$ averaged
755: over all S/N.
756:
757: We caution that there are some unmodeled effects which, if included,
758: would result in a larger $\sigma_{\dz}$. First, template noise is not
759: included in the simulations. $\sigma_{\dz}$ is larger in the SHeLS
760: data than in SIM3 for $S/N>60$, which we attribute to template noise.
761: Template noise becomes less important at lower photometric S/N, but
762: the template noise in the SHeLS data may be artificially low. The
763: templates were originally derived from bright galaxies like those in
764: SHeLS, and further optimized on the SHeLS sample itself. A
765: photometric sample which pushes to higher redshift may thus incur more
766: template noise, and in fact Fernandez-Soto \etal~(1999) estimates
767: $\sigma_{\dz}=0.065(1+z)$ for galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field.
768:
769: Second, because galaxy counts are rising beyond the limiting magnitude
770: for detection, an additional source of photometry noise must be taken
771: into account. A source detected at S/N of a few is much more likely
772: to be an ``up-scattered'' fainter galaxy than a ``down-scattered''
773: brighter galaxy. As pointed out by Hogg \& Turner (1998, hereafter
774: HT98), this is distinct from Malmquist bias, which is the
775: over-representation of high-{\it luminosity} galaxies in a flux-limited
776: sample. Although the resulting bias can be computed and corrected for
777: if the galaxy count slope is known, the additional photometric
778: uncertainty is unavoidable. In fact, HT98 conclude that ``sources
779: identified at signal-to-noise ratios of four or less are practically
780: useless.'' This source of noise was not reproduced in our
781: simulations, so extrapolation to $S/N<5$ would be extremely dangerous.
782: Our results for $S/N=5$ are still valid if five is interpreted as the
783: effective S/N in the presence of this additional source of noise. For
784: the no-evolution, Euclidean slope of $q=1.5$, the HT98 formulae
785: indicate that this requires a detection at $S/N=5.64$. For $S/N=10$
786: and higher, the corrections are very small.
787:
788: In addition to these dependences on S/N, several other lessons can be
789: drawn:
790: \begin{itemize}
791:
792: \item When forecasting photometric redshift performance for a survey,
793: it is important to include realistic photometry errors.
794:
795: \item Estimating photometric redshift performance with spectroscopic
796: samples can lead to optimistic results if the spectroscopic sample is
797: not representative of the photometric sample. If the spectroscopic
798: sample is brighter, matching the S/N is easily accomplished by adding
799: photometry noise, but accounting for the larger redshift range of the
800: photometric sample requires detailed modeling which must account for
801: cosmic variance.
802:
803: \item The BPZ $ODDS$ parameter is very effective at identifying
804: photometric redshifts which are likely to be poor. An $ODDS$ cut is
805: more efficient than an S/N cut, because $ODDS$ takes account of the
806: looser photometry requirements in distinctive regions of color space.
807: Still, our simulations and artificially noisy data show that of the
808: galaxies with $ODDS<0.9$, the ones with poor photometric redshifts may
809: be in the minority. The tradeoff between $ODDS$ cut and usable
810: numbers of galaxies must be assessed in light of the specific science
811: goal. For example, if the science analysis weights each galaxy by its
812: photometric S/N, a strict $ODDS$ cut may cut most of the galaxies but
813: not most of the total weight. For weak lensing, shape noise limits
814: the maximum weight of a galaxy, so a strict $ODDS$ cut may cut most of
815: the weight. Finally, biases must be considered, as ellipticals are
816: overrepresented in the set of galaxies with high $ODDS$. This may not
817: affect weak lensing but will be important for studies of galaxy
818: evolution and baryon acoustic oscillations.
819:
820: \end{itemize}
821:
822: We also explored cutting in type (as identified by BPZ) and redshift
823: range. As expected, ellipticals do better than any other type, but we
824: found that the $ODDS$ cut was still useful for ellipticals. As long
825: as the $ODDS$ cut was being used, other types could safely be used as
826: well. Therefore, we recommend cutting on ODDS rather than type.
827:
828:
829: \acknowledgments
830:
831: We thank NOAO for supporting survey programs and the CFGRS project for
832: making data publicly available. DLS observations were obtained at
833: Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) and Kitt Peak National
834: Observatory (KPNO). CTIO and KPNO are part of the National Optical
835: Astronomy Observatory (NOAO), which is operated by the Association of
836: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative
837: agreement with the National Science Foundation. We also would like to
838: thank Margaret Geller and Michael Kurtz for providing us with 1,000
839: SHeLS redshifts, which were observed with Hectospec at the MMT
840: Telescope.
841:
842: We thank Ian Dell'Antonio and Tony Tyson for comments that led to
843: improvements to the paper.
844:
845: \begin{thebibliography}{}
846:
847: \bibitem[Abdalla et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0705.1437A} Abdalla, F.~B., Amara,
848: A., Capak, P., Cypriano, E.~S., Lahav, O., \& Rhodes, J.\ 2007, ArXiv
849: e-prints, 705, arXiv:0705.1437
850:
851: \bibitem[Benitez 2000]{} Benitez, N. 2000, \apj, 536, 571
852:
853: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{1996A&AS..117..393B} Bertin, E., \&
854: Arnouts, S.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 393
855:
856: \bibitem[Bolzonella et al.(2000)]{2000A&A...363..476B} Bolzonella, M.,
857: Miralles, J.-M., \& Pell{\'o}, R.\ 2000, \aap, 363, 476
858:
859: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(1999)]{1999ApJS..120..171C} Cohen, J.~G., Hogg,
860: D.~W., Pahre, M.~A., Blandford, R., Shopbell, P.~L., \& Richberg, K.\ 1999,
861: \apjs, 120, 171
862:
863: \bibitem[Connolly et al.(1995)]{1995AJ....110.2655C} Connolly, A.~J.,
864: Csabai, I., Szalay, A.~S., Koo, D.~C., Kron, R.~G., \& Munn, J.~A.\ 1995,
865: \aj, 110, 2655
866:
867: \bibitem[Csabai et al.(2000)]{2000AJ....119...69C} Csabai, I., Connolly,
868: A.~J., Szalay, A.~S., \& Budav{\'a}ri, T.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 69
869:
870: \bibitem[Dickinson(1998)]{1998hdf..symp..219D} Dickinson, M.\ 1998, The
871: Hubble Deep Field, 219
872:
873: \bibitem[Fern{\'a}ndez-Soto et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...513...34F}
874: Fern{\'a}ndez-Soto, A., Lanzetta, K.~M., \& Yahil, A.\ 1999, \apj, 513, 34
875:
876: % intro to template noise
877: \bibitem[Fern{\'a}ndez-Soto et al.(2001)]{2001ApJS..135...41F}
878: Fern{\'a}ndez-Soto, A., Lanzetta, K.~M., Chen, H.-W., Pascarelle, S.~M., \&
879: Yahata, N.\ 2001, \apjs, 135, 41
880:
881: % full pdf
882: \bibitem[Fern{\'a}ndez-Soto et al.(2002)]{2002MNRAS.330..889F}
883: Fern{\'a}ndez-Soto, A., Lanzetta, K.~M., Chen, H.-W., Levine, B., \&
884: Yahata, N.\ 2002, \mnras, 330, 889
885:
886: \bibitem[Geller et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...635L.125G} Geller, M.~J.,
887: Dell'Antonio, I.~P., Kurtz, M.~J., Ramella, M., Fabricant, D.~G., Caldwell,
888: N., Tyson, J.~A., \& Wittman, D.\ 2005, \apjl, 635, L125
889:
890: \bibitem[Hogg et al.(1998)]{1998AJ....115.1418H} Hogg, D.~W., et al.\ 1998,
891: \aj, 115, 1418
892:
893: \bibitem[Hogg \& Turner(1998)]{1998PASP..110..727H} Hogg, D.~W., \& Turner,
894: E.~L.\ 1998, \pasp, 110, 727
895:
896: \bibitem[Huterer et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.366..101H} Huterer, D., Takada,
897: M., Bernstein, G., \& Jain, B.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 101
898:
899: \bibitem[Ilbert et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...457..841I} Ilbert, O., et al.\
900: 2006, \aap, 457, 841
901:
902: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{1992AJ....104..340L} Landolt, A.~U.\ 1992, \aj,
903: 104, 340
904:
905: \bibitem[Le F{\`e}vre et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...439..845L} Le F{\`e}vre, O.,
906: et al.\ 2005, \aap, 439, 845
907:
908: \bibitem[Ma et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...636...21M} Ma, Z., Hu, W., \& Huterer,
909: D.\ 2006, \apj, 636, 21
910:
911: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{2002AJ....123.2121S} Smith, J.~A., et al.\
912: 2002, \aj, 123, 2121
913:
914: \bibitem[Wittman et al.(2002)]{2002SPIE.4836...73W} Wittman, D.~M., et al.\
915: 2002, \procspie, 4836, 73
916:
917: \bibitem[Zhan \& Knox(2006)]{2006ApJ...644..663Z} Zhan, H., \& Knox, L.\
918: 2006, \apj, 644, 663
919:
920: \end{thebibliography}
921:
922: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
923: %%% FIGURES %%%
924: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
925:
926: %-SIM----------------------------------------------------------------%
927:
928: \begin{figure}
929: %\epsscale{.80}
930: \plottwo{f1a.ps}
931: {f1b.ps}
932: \caption{Priors used to populate the simulations. Left: $P(T|m_0)$ is
933: the galaxy type fraction as a function of magnitude; Right:
934: $P(z|T,m_0)$ is the redshift distribution for galaxies of a given
935: spectral type and magnitude for $mag=20,23,26$. Throughout this paper
936: we use the priors indicated by the solid red lines (BPZ code). The
937: dashed red lines represent the priors in BPZ's paper (Benitez 2000),
938: while the green lines indicate the priors derived by Ilbert \etal
939: (2007).
940: \label{fig-priors}}
941: \end{figure}
942: %\clearpage
943:
944: \begin{figure}
945: \plotone{f2.ps}
946: \caption{DLS $N(mag_{iso})$ for BVRz.
947: \label{fig-nmagdls}}
948: \end{figure}
949: %\clearpage
950:
951:
952: \begin{figure}
953: \plotone{f3.ps}
954: \caption{$N(\zi)$ for simulations.
955: \label{fig-nzinput}}
956: \end{figure}
957: %\clearpage
958:
959: %-SIM1----------------------------------------------------------------%
960:
961: \begin{figure}
962: \plotone{f4.ps}
963: \caption{$\zp-\zs$ scatter-plot for SIM1 (no photometry
964: noise). Galaxies with $ODDS>0.9$ are in red. See first line of
965: Table~\ref{tab:sim12} for statistics.
966: \label{fig-sim1}}
967: \end{figure}
968: %\clearpage
969:
970: \begin{figure}
971: \plotone{f5.ps}
972: \caption{Histogram of $\dz$ for the simulation in
973: Figure~\ref{fig-sim1}. The distribution of galaxies with $ODDS>0.9$
974: is shown in red. The outermost bins show the integrated counts of
975: all objects with $|\dz|>0.4$.
976: \label{fig-sim1dz}}
977: \end{figure}
978: %\clearpage
979:
980: %-SIM2----------------------------------------------------------------%
981:
982: \begin{figure}
983: \plotone{f6.ps}
984: \caption{$\zp-\zs$ scatter-plot for simulations with
985: realistic magnitude and redshift distributions, but uniform and
986: progressively greater photometry noise (SIM2). In each panel all
987: galaxies have the same \sn~ in BVRz. From top-left to bottom-right:
988: SN=250, 100, 60, 30, 10, 5. See Table ~\ref{tab:sim12} for statistics.
989: \label{fig-sim2}}
990: \end{figure}
991: %\clearpage
992:
993: \begin{figure}
994: \plotone{f7.ps}
995: \caption{Histogram of $\dz$ for objects shown in Figure~\ref{fig-sim2} (SIM2).
996: \label{fig-sim2dz}}
997: \end{figure}
998: %\clearpage
999:
1000: \begin{figure}
1001: \plottwo{f8a.ps}
1002: {f8b.ps}
1003: \caption{Cumulative fraction of objects with $\dz$ smaller than a
1004: given value. Red line indicates the simulation in which all galaxies
1005: have been set to have $SN=250$ in all BVRz; orange indicates a
1006: simulation with $SN=100$; and so on. Right panel shows all galaxies,
1007: and left panel shows galaxies with $ODDS>0.9$. Note that only 6.4\%
1008: and 1.2\% respectively of objects with $SN=10,5$ have $ODDS>0.9$.
1009: \label{fig-sim2frac}}
1010: \end{figure}
1011: \clearpage
1012:
1013: %-SIM3----------------------------------------------------------------%
1014:
1015: \begin{figure}
1016: \plotone{f9.ps}
1017: \caption{Galaxy type fraction as a function of magnitude,
1018: $P(T|m_0)$. The solid red lines indicate BPZ's priors used in the
1019: simulations of Section~\ref{simulations} and shown previously in
1020: Figure~\ref{fig-priors}. The ``$+$'' and ``$\times$'' symbols
1021: indicate fraction of galaxies classified by BPZ as E, Sbc/Scd, or
1022: Im/SB3/SB2 in two DLS fields of $40^{\prime}\times40^{\prime}$
1023: each. The ``$+$'' field, with higher fraction of ellipticals,
1024: contains the galaxy cluster Abell 781, while the ``$\times$''
1025: represents a more typical ``blank'' field. The simulation input
1026: distribution is indicated by solid circles, which by definition
1027: agree with the red line, while the open circles indicate the BPZ
1028: type classification of these objects. The blue ``$\times$''
1029: represents the SHeLS spectroscopic sample.
1030: \label{fig-priors2}}
1031: \end{figure}
1032: %\clearpage
1033:
1034: \begin{figure}
1035: \plotone{f10.ps}
1036: \caption{Photometric redshift distributions for the DLS (blue) and SIM3 (red).
1037: The input $N(z)$ for the simulations is shown in black.
1038: \label{fig-dlsnz}}
1039: \end{figure}
1040: %\clearpage
1041:
1042: \begin{figure}
1043: \plotone{f11.ps}
1044: \caption{$\zp-\zs$ scatter-plot for simulations with realistic
1045: magnitude, redshift, and S/N distributions (SIM3). Upper left panel
1046: shows all galaxies with very high \sn~ (small number density and
1047: mostly at low redshift) while lower right panel includes all galaxies
1048: in the simulation. From upper left to lower right: (1) galaxies with
1049: $SN>250$; (2) $SN>100$; (3) $SN>60$; (4) $SN>30$; (5) $SN>10$; and
1050: (6) $SN=All$.
1051: \label{fig-sim3}}
1052: \end{figure}
1053: %\clearpage
1054:
1055: \begin{figure}
1056: \plotone{f12.ps}
1057: \caption{Histogram of $\dz$ for objects shown in Figure~\ref{fig-sim3}.
1058: \label{fig-sim3dz}}
1059: \end{figure}
1060: %\clearpage
1061:
1062: \begin{figure}
1063: \plottwo{f13a.ps}
1064: {f13b.ps}
1065: \caption{Cumulative fraction of objects with $\dz$ smaller than a
1066: given value for simulations with realistic magnitude and redshift
1067: distributions (SIM3). Red line shows the cumulative fraction for all
1068: objects with $SN(R)>250$; orange shows the fraction for all objects
1069: with $SN(R)>100$ (including those with $SN(R)>250$); and so on.
1070: Right panel shows all galaxies, and left panel shows galaxies with
1071: $ODDS>0.9$.
1072: \label{fig-sim3frac}}
1073: \end{figure}
1074: %\clearpage
1075:
1076: %\begin{figure}
1077: %\plotone{f14.ps}
1078: %\caption{$N(\zi)$ for successive cuts in \sn. Black: No SN cut; Blue:
1079: % $SN>10$; Green: $SN>30$; Yellow: $SN>60$; Orange: $SN>100$; Red:
1080: % $SN>250$. Note that the galaxy mixture also changes according to the
1081: % priors shown in Figure~\ref{fig-priors}.
1082: %\label{fig-nzinputsn}}
1083: %\end{figure}
1084: %\clearpage
1085:
1086: \begin{figure}
1087: \plottwo{f14a.ps}
1088: {f14b.ps}
1089: \caption{{\bf Left:} Cumulative fraction of objects with \sn~greater than a
1090: given value, mean $\dz$, and $\sigma_{\dz}$. {\bf Right:} same as
1091: left panels for objects with $ODDS$ greater than a given
1092: value. Solid line indicates all objects and dashed lines shows
1093: $|\dz|<0.5$.
1094: \label{fig-sim3snodds}}
1095: \end{figure}
1096: \clearpage
1097:
1098:
1099: %-Data----------------------------------------------------------------%
1100: %-Measuring Colors----------------------------------------------------%
1101:
1102: \begin{figure}
1103: \plottwo{f15a.ps}
1104: {f15b.ps}
1105: \caption{Magnitude errors of synthetic De Vaucouleurs (red) and
1106: exponential disk (green) galaxies added to DLS R-band images. Left
1107: panels show the SExtractor $MAG_{ISO}$ results while right panels
1108: indicate comparisons to SExtractor $MAG_{AUTO}$. Top: $\Delta{MAG}
1109: \equiv MAG-MAG_{input}$ {\it vs.} $MAG$. Bottom:
1110: $\Delta{MAG}/MAGerr$ {\it vs.} $MAG$.
1111: \label{fig-magRmagerr}}
1112: \end{figure}
1113: %\clearpage
1114:
1115: \begin{figure}
1116: \plottwo{f16a.ps}
1117: {f16b.ps}
1118: \caption{Color errors of synthetic De Vaucouleurs (red) and
1119: exponential disk (green) galaxies added to DLS images. Left panels
1120: show the SExtractor $MAG_{ISO}$ results while right panels indicate
1121: comparisons to SExtractor $MAG_{AUTO}$. The four panels in each
1122: column show different color combinations.
1123: \label{fig-colorerr}}
1124: \end{figure}
1125: %\clearpage
1126:
1127: \begin{figure}
1128: \plotone{f17.ps}
1129: \caption{Distribution of colors derived from $MAG_{ISO}$ and
1130: $MAG_{AUTO}$ for zero-color synthetic De Vaucouleurs (red) and
1131: exponential disk (green) galaxies added to DLS data. Here we show
1132: galaxies brighter than $24.5^m$ which corresponds to $\sn\sim10$ in
1133: BVR, but goes down to $\sn\sim3$ in z. The edge bins indicate the
1134: number of objects out of the limits of the plot.
1135: \label{fig-cc}}
1136: \end{figure}
1137:
1138: \begin{figure}
1139: \plottwo{f18a.ps}
1140: {f18b.ps}
1141: \caption{Cumulative fraction of objects as function of
1142: $\Delta_{MAG}/MAGerr_{ISO}$ and $\Delta_{COLOR}/COLORerr_{ISO}$. Red
1143: lines represent galaxies with a De Vaucouleurs light profile, and
1144: green lines represent galaxies with an exponential disk. The dashed
1145: lines indicate the cumulative fraction after an ad hoc increase in
1146: the measured magnitude errors. The augmented errors guarantee that
1147: $\sim68(95)\%$ of the galaxies have colors within $1(2)\sigma$.
1148: A much larger increase would be needed in order to have
1149: $\sim 68(95)\%$ of galaxies with measured magnitudes within
1150: $1(2)\sigma$.
1151: \label{fig-frac}}
1152: \end{figure}
1153: \clearpage
1154:
1155: %-Template Optimization-------------------------------------------%
1156:
1157: \begin{figure}
1158: \plotone{f19.ps}
1159: \caption{Optimized \sed~templates are shown in red, and the original
1160: templates are in green. SB2 template was kept unchanged.
1161: \label{fig-seds}}
1162: \end{figure}
1163: %\clearpage
1164:
1165: %-Shels-----------------------------------------------------------%
1166:
1167: \begin{figure}
1168: \plotone{f20.ps}
1169: \caption{$\zp-\zs$ scatter-plot for 860 objects with spectroscopic
1170: redshifts from the SHeLS survey in the DLS survey. Top-left panel
1171: shows the results when the maximum \sn~photometry is used. The five
1172: other panels (from top-right to bottom=right) show the results with
1173: progressively greater photometry noise: $\sn=100,60,30,10,5$. See
1174: Table~\ref{tab:shelsdata} for statistics.
1175: \label{fig-shelsdatasn}}
1176: \end{figure}
1177: %\clearpage
1178:
1179: \begin{figure}
1180: \plotone{f21.ps}
1181: \caption{Histogram of $\delta z$ for for objects shown in Figure~\ref{fig-shelsdatasn}.
1182: \label{fig-shelsdatasndz}}
1183: \end{figure}
1184: %\clearpage
1185:
1186: \begin{figure}
1187: \plottwo{f22a.ps}
1188: {f22b.ps}
1189: \caption{Cumulative fraction of objects as a function of $\dz$. Red
1190: lines shows the cumulative fraction for maximum \sn~photometry in
1191: the SHeLS survey; orange shows the fraction when objects are noised
1192: up simulate $SN=100$ in BVRz; and so on. Right panel shows all
1193: galaxies, and left panel shows galaxies with $ODDS>0.9$. %Note that
1194: % only 2 galaxies have $ODDS>0.9$ in the $\sn=5$ simulation (magenta),
1195: % and only 75 galaxies have $ODDS>0.9$ in the $\sn=10$ simulation
1196: % (blue).
1197: \label{fig-shelsfrac}}
1198: \end{figure}
1199: \clearpage
1200:
1201: %-CFGRS-----------------------------------------------------------%
1202:
1203: \begin{figure}
1204: \plottwo{f23a.ps}
1205: {f23b.ps}
1206: \caption{$\zp-\zs$ scatter-plot for 222 objects with
1207: spectroscopic redshifts from the CFGRS survey. The sample was
1208: subdivided in two: left, $\sn>106$; right,$\sn<106$. In red, we show
1209: objects with $ODDS>0.9$.
1210: \label{fig-cfgrs}}
1211: \end{figure}
1212: %\clearpage
1213:
1214: %-Galaxy Type-----------------------------------------------------%
1215:
1216: \begin{figure}
1217: \plotone{f24.ps}
1218: \caption{$\zp-\zs$ scatter-plot for SIM1 subdivided according to
1219: \bpz~galaxy type ($T_B$). Galaxies with $ODDS>0.9$ are in red.
1220: \label{fig-sim1typ}}
1221: \end{figure}
1222: %\clearpage
1223:
1224: \begin{figure}
1225: \plotone{f25.ps}
1226: \caption{$\zp-\zs$ scatter-plot for SIM3 subdivided according to
1227: \bpz~galaxy type ($T_B$). Galaxies with $ODDS>0.9$ are in red.
1228: \label{fig-sim3typ}}
1229: \end{figure}
1230: %\clearpage
1231:
1232: \begin{figure}
1233: \plotone{f26.ps}
1234: \caption{$\zp-\zs$ scatter-plot subdivided according to \bpz~galaxy
1235: type ($T_B$) for 860 objects with spectroscopic redshifts from
1236: SHeLS. Galaxies with $ODDS>0.9$ are in red.
1237: \label{fig-datatyp}}
1238: \end{figure}
1239: %\clearpage
1240:
1241: \begin{figure}
1242: \plotone{f27.ps}
1243: \caption{Input spectral type ($T_{true}$) {\it vs.} output \bpz ~type
1244: ($T_B$) for SIM3 galaxies with $S/N>30$. Types are: $1-E$; $2-Sbc$;
1245: $3-Scd$; $4-Irr$; $5-SB3$; $6-SB2$. In the left panels we select
1246: galaxies by $T_B$ (shaded red) and then look at their $T_{true}$
1247: distribution (shaded black). The unshaded black histogram is the
1248: same in all plots and indicates the $T_{true}$ distribution. In the
1249: right panels, we select galaxies by their true type (shaded black)
1250: and then look at the $T_B$ distribution (shaded red). The unshaded
1251: red histogram indicates the $T_{B}$ distribution.
1252: \label{fig-types}}
1253: \end{figure}
1254: %\clearpage
1255:
1256: \begin{figure}
1257: \plotone{f28.ps}
1258: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig-types} but including galaxies with
1259: very low \sn~(all detections). Black represents true galaxy types
1260: (input) and red indicates the $T_B$ classification.
1261: \label{fig-typesall}}
1262: \end{figure}
1263: \clearpage
1264:
1265:
1266: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1267: %%% TABLES %%%
1268: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1269:
1270: %-SIM1 & SIM2-----------------------------------------------------------%
1271: %/home/vem/mypapers/ZPHOT2/table.sim12.tex
1272:
1273: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
1274: \tablewidth{0pt}
1275: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1276: \tablecaption{Galaxies with Fixed Signal-to-Noise (SIM1 \& SIM2)
1277: \label{tab:sim12}}
1278: \tablehead{\colhead{SN} &\multicolumn{3}{c}{$|\dz|\le0.5$} &\multicolumn{4}{c}{$ODDS>0.9$}\\
1279: \colhead{} &\colhead{$|\dz|\le0.5 \over All$(\%)} &\colhead{$\bar{\dz}$} &\colhead{$\sigma(\dz)$} &\colhead{$ODDS>0.9\over All$(\%)} &\colhead{$|\dz|\le0.5~\&~ODDS>0.9 \over ODDS>0.9$(\%)} &\colhead{$\bar{\dz}$} &\colhead{$\sigma(\dz)$}}
1280: \startdata
1281: Inf (SIM1) & 95.3 & -0.008 & 0.051 & 53.4 & 99.7 & -0.000 & 0.006 \\
1282: 250 (SIM2) & 96.0 & -0.005 & 0.042 & 64.2 & 99.8 & -0.000 & 0.009 \\
1283: 100 (SIM2) & 95.5 & -0.007 & 0.049 & 60.7 & 99.7 & -0.000 & 0.012 \\
1284: 60 (SIM2) & 94.7 & -0.010 & 0.062 & 54.4 & 99.7 & -0.001 & 0.015 \\
1285: 30 (SIM2) & 92.5 & -0.014 & 0.085 & 40.6 & 99.9 & -0.002 & 0.020 \\
1286: 10 (SIM2) & 87.6 & -0.007 & 0.121 & 6.4 & 100.0 & -0.001 & 0.023 \\
1287: 5 (SIM2) & 84.7 & 0.019 & 0.151 & 1.2 & 99.9 & 0.001 & 0.012 \\
1288: \enddata
1289: %\tablecomments{}
1290: \end{deluxetable}
1291:
1292: %-SIM3------------------------------------------------------------------%
1293: %/home/vem/mypapers/ZPHOT2/table.sim3.tex
1294:
1295: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
1296: \tablewidth{0pt}
1297: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1298: \tablecaption{Galaxies in DLS like simulations (SIM3)
1299: \label{tab:sim3}}
1300: \tablehead{\colhead{SN(R)} &\multicolumn{3}{c}{$|\dz|\le0.5$} &\multicolumn{4}{c}{$ODDS>0.9$}\\
1301: \colhead{} &\colhead{$|\dz|\le0.5 \over All$(\%)} &\colhead{$\bar{\dz}$} &\colhead{$\sigma(\dz)$} &\colhead{$ODDS>0.9\over All$(\%)} &\colhead{$|\dz|\le0.5~\&~ODDS>0.9 \over ODDS>0.9$(\%)} &\colhead{$\bar{\dz}$} &\colhead{$\sigma(\dz)$}}
1302: \startdata
1303: $>250$ & 100.0 & -0.001 & 0.031 & 90.9 & 100.0 & -0.001 & 0.021 \\
1304: $>100$ & 100.0 & 0.001 & 0.037 & 89.4 & 100.0 & 0.000 & 0.026 \\
1305: $>60$ & 99.7 & -0.000 & 0.050 & 82.6 & 100.0 & 0.000 & 0.030 \\
1306: $>30$ & 97.8 & -0.004 & 0.076 & 67.0 & 99.6 & -0.001 & 0.036 \\
1307: $>10$ & 89.3 & -0.004 & 0.125 & 23.5 & 99.3 & -0.001 & 0.040 \\
1308: $>5$ & 85.0 & 0.008 & 0.154 & 14.1 & 99.3 & -0.001 & 0.040 \\
1309: All & 83.6 & 0.018 & 0.170 & 11.9 & 99.3 & -0.001 & 0.040 \\
1310: \enddata
1311: %\tablecomments{}
1312: \end{deluxetable}
1313:
1314: %-SHELS-----------------------------------------------------------------%
1315: %/home/vem/mypapers/ZPHOT2/table.shelsdata.tex
1316:
1317: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
1318: \tablewidth{0pt}
1319: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1320: \tablecaption{Galaxies with Spectroscopic Redshifts from the SHeLS Survey
1321: \label{tab:shelsdata}}
1322: \tablehead{\colhead{SN} &\multicolumn{3}{c}{$|\dz|\le0.5$} &\multicolumn{4}{c}{$ODDS>0.9$}\\
1323: \colhead{} &\colhead{$|\dz|\le0.5 \over All$(\%)} &\colhead{$\bar{\dz}$} &\colhead{$\sigma(\dz)$} &\colhead{$ODDS>0.9\over All$(\%)} &\colhead{$|\dz|\le0.5~\&~ODDS>0.9 \over ODDS>0.9$(\%)} &\colhead{$\bar{\dz}$} &\colhead{$\sigma(\dz)$}}
1324: \startdata
1325: Max & 99.9 & -0.005 & 0.050 & 85.6 & 99.9 & -0.006 & 0.044 \\
1326: 100 & 99.8 & -0.006 & 0.050 & 83.0 & 99.9 & -0.007 & 0.045 \\
1327: 60 & 99.8 & -0.006 & 0.054 & 76.9 & 99.7 & -0.006 & 0.045 \\
1328: % 50 & 99.7 & -0.008 & 0.055 & 75.1 & 99.8 & -0.007 & 0.044 \\
1329: 30 & 100.0 & -0.012 & 0.061 & 62.9 & 100.0 & -0.010 & 0.046 \\
1330: % 20 & 100.0 & -0.013 & 0.067 & 46.3 & 100.0 & -0.010 & 0.048 \\
1331: 10 & 100.0 & -0.016 & 0.080 & 8.3 & 100.0 & -0.015 & 0.038 \\
1332: 5 & 99.8 & -0.021 & 0.090 & 0.5 & 100.0 & -0.061 & 0.035 \\
1333: \enddata
1334: %\tablecomments{}
1335: \end{deluxetable}
1336:
1337: \end{document}
1338:
1339: