1: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \usepackage{natbib}
6:
7: \newcommand{\ls}{\mathrel{\raise1.16pt\hbox{$<$}\kern-7.0pt % <
8: \lower3.06pt\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}} % ~
9: \newcommand{\gs}{\mathrel{\raise1.16pt\hbox{$>$}\kern-7.0pt % >
10: \lower3.06pt\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}} % ~
11: \def\VEV#1{{\langle #1 \rangle}}
12: \long\def\comment#1{}
13: \def\hatn{{\bf \hat n}}
14: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt
15: \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
16: \def\lap{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
17: \def\gap{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \title{Improving Photometric Redshifts using GALEX Observations for the SDSS Stripe 82
22: and the Next Generation of SZ Cluster Surveys}
23:
24: \author{Michael D. Niemack\altaffilmark{1}, Raul Jimenez\altaffilmark{2},
25: Licia Verde\altaffilmark{2}, Felipe Menanteau\altaffilmark{3}, Ben
26: Panter\altaffilmark{4}, David Spergel\altaffilmark{5}}
27:
28: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, Jadwin Hall, Princeton
29: University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA; mniemack@princeton.edu}
30: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute of Space Sciences (CSIC-IEEC)/ICREA,
31: Campus UAB, Barcelona 08193, Spain; raul@ieec.uab.es}
32: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University, NJ, USA}
33: \altaffiltext{4}{SUPA, Institute
34: for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh
35: EH9-3HJ, UK}
36: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences,
37: Peyton Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA}
38:
39: %%%%%%%%%%%
40: \begin{abstract}
41: Four large-area Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) experiments -- APEX-SZ, SPT,
42: ACT, and Planck -- promise to detect clusters of galaxies through
43: the distortion of Cosmic Microwave Background photons by hot ($>
44: 10^6$ K) cluster gas (the SZ effect) over thousands of square
45: degrees. A large observational follow-up effort to obtain
46: redshifts for these SZ-detected clusters is under way. Given the
47: large area covered by these surveys, most of the redshifts will be
48: obtained via the photometric redshift (photo-$z$) technique. Here
49: we demonstrate, in an application using $\sim$3000 SDSS stripe 82
50: galaxies with $r<20$, how the addition of GALEX photometry
51: ($F_{UV}$, $N_{UV}$) greatly improves the photometric redshifts of
52: galaxies obtained with optical $griz$ or $ugriz$ photometry. In the
53: case where large spectroscopic training sets are available,
54: empirical neural-network-based techniques (e.g., ANNz) can yield a
55: photo-$z$ scatter of $\sigma_z = 0.018 (1+z)$. If large
56: spectroscopic training sets are not available, the addition of GALEX
57: data makes possible the use simple maximum likelihood techniques,
58: without resorting to Bayesian priors, and obtains
59: $\sigma_z=0.04(1+z)$, accuracy that approaches the accuracy obtained
60: using spectroscopic training of neural networks on $ugriz$
61: observations. This improvement is especially notable for blue
62: galaxies. To achieve these results, we have developed a new set of
63: high resolution spectral templates based on physical information
64: about the star formation history of galaxies. We envision these
65: templates to be useful for the next generation of photo-$z$
66: applications. We make our spectral templates and new photo-$z$
67: catalogs available to the community at
68: www.ice.csic.es/personal/jimenez/PHOTOZ.
69: \end{abstract}
70:
71: \keywords{galaxies, clusters, photometric redshifts, SZ, dark
72: energy, general}
73:
74: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
75: \section{Introduction}
76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
77: Thousands of square degrees of the sky are currently being observed
78: at mm wavelengths by three experiments: APEX-SZ\footnote{{
79: www.apex-telescope.org}}, South Pole Telescope (SPT)\footnote{{
80: spt.uchicago.edu}} and Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT)\footnote{{
81: www.physics.princeton.edu/act}}. In addition, the Planck satellite,
82: to be launched this fall, will observe the whole sky. The promise of
83: these surveys is to provide a nearly mass-selected galaxy cluster
84: sample via the Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) effect \citep{SZ}. Because of
85: the lack of sensitivity of the SZ-effect to redshift, clusters or
86: groups of galaxies detected this way need follow-up observations at
87: other wavelengths to determine their redshifts. The large area of
88: sky covered and the large number of expected detections make
89: spectroscopic follow-up of galaxies in every cluster prohibitive.
90: Upcoming surveys will rely on redshifts obtained from broad-band
91: photometry (photometric redshifts or photo-$z$) or custom-designed
92: narrow-band photometry \citep{alhambra, pau}. As broad-band
93: photometry provides low resolution spectral information, the
94: determination of galaxy-redshifts can be affected by relatively
95: large errors. Photo-$z$ errors can limit the accuracy of
96: cosmological studies using galaxies or clusters, which highlights
97: the importance of improving photo-$z$ determinations. For example,
98: SPT and ACT will attempt to constrain the dark energy equation of
99: state using SZ selected clusters and photo-$z$ \citep{SPT_white}.
100: \cite{lima-hu07} calculate that a photo-$z$ bias of 0.003 and
101: scatter of 0.03 will cause a $\sim$10\% increase in the amplitude of
102: the equation of state error bars achieved by SPT using this
103: approach. The above surveys will require photo-$z$ not only for SZ
104: clusters but also for field galaxies, to carry out ancillary science
105: such as exploiting the signal of CMB weak lensing (e.g.,
106: \citealt{melita}) by large scale structure and the kinetic-SZ effect
107: (e.g., \citealt{carlosksz}): two powerful probes of the growth of
108: structure, which are useful, for example, in distinguishing between
109: modified gravity and dark energy as the source of the present
110: accelerating expansion of the universe.
111:
112: The use of broad-band photometry to determine redshifts is not new
113: (see first attempts by \citealt{Baum} and \citealt{Koo}). In its
114: minimalistic approach it consists of simply finding the best fit
115: redshift using a series of galaxy templates, which can be either
116: chosen from stellar population models or empirically \citep{koo99}
117: as long as the set is exhaustive (i.e. fully describes the galaxy
118: population). With the arrival of large spectrographs, it became
119: clear that a refinement of the above technique could be achieved by
120: using small subsets of spectroscopic redshifts as ``training sets''
121: for larger photometric samples. One can then use these training sets
122: as inputs for empirical fits to the magnitudes versus $z$ (e.g.
123: \citealt{Budavari_photoz_2005}) or for artificial neural network
124: codes to compute photo-$z$
125: \citep{vanzella04,collister04,ANNz_SDSS_07}. Another approach is to
126: use prior information about galaxies, like the fact that faint
127: galaxies tend to be farther away, as a Bayesian prior for computing
128: the redshift likelihood from the templates
129: \citep{bpz,CFHT_photoz06,zebra}. Other recently developed techniques
130: that go beyond simple photometry fits include using structural
131: properties of galaxies like their size or surface brightness to
132: obtain more accurate photo-$z$ (e.g., \citealt{WrayGunn07}).
133:
134: The above methods have their pros and cons. For example, methods
135: based on training sets, because of their empirical basis, can only
136: be reliably extended as far as the spectroscopic redshift limit.
137: Training sets for surveys such as the dark energy survey (DES) and
138: the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) survey will need of the
139: order of hundreds of thousands of spectroscopic redshifts
140: \citep{connollylsst, frieman}.
141:
142: To use Bayesian prior-based methods, one needs to construct and
143: test different priors for different redshift ranges and surveys,
144: which also requires spectroscopic redshifts to accurately generate
145: the prior distributions.
146:
147: Given the need to obtain relatively accurate photo-$z$ for the large
148: SZ survey areas we have explored an alternative approach.
149: The goal of this approach is to optimize photo-$z$ accuracy while
150: minimizing external assumptions (priors) and additional data
151: acquisition.
152:
153: Our approach, presented in detail below, consists of obtaining
154: moderate depth observations with the Galaxy Evolution Explorer
155: (GALEX) combined with optical $griz$ data. This data combination was
156: first tried by \cite{Budavari_photoz_2005}, \cite{Way_photoz_2006},
157: and \cite{Ball_photoz_GALEX_2007}, who used empirical approaches
158: with spectroscopic training sets for photo-$z$ determination. Adding
159: the two GALEX broad bands at central wavelengths of
160: $\sim$$1500$~\AA\ ($F_{UV}$) and $\sim$$2300$~\AA\ ($N_{UV}$) to
161: optical $griz$ photometry, improves photo-$z$ determinations, while
162: requiring minimal assumptions about external priors, for the
163: following reason. The $4000$~\AA\ break, which is the most commonly
164: used spectral feature for optical photo-$z$ determination, is
165: greatly reduced for blue galaxies, making it more difficult to use
166: as a redshift indicator. This problem is particularly acute at $z
167: \gap 0.5$, where most galaxies are young and have high star
168: formation rates (e.g., \citealt{heavens04}). The $912$~\AA\
169: Lyman-limit, on the other hand, is exhibited by all galaxies
170: (Fig.~\ref{fig:templates}). Filters that sample closer to the
171: Lyman-limit help to pin down the galaxy type and redshift,
172: especially for blue galaxies with no substantial $4000$~\AA\ break.
173: Further, given the strong sensitivity of the $UV$ to star formation,
174: one can directly obtain a measure of star formation.
175:
176: In carrying out this work, we found that galaxy templates with well
177: motivated blue spectra (in particular, blue-wards of 3000~\AA) are
178: not publicly available. Either this region of the spectrum was
179: missing (like in the original \citealt{cww_templates80} templates)
180: or it was modeled roughly with no spectral features beyond the
181: Lyman-limit. Motivated by the need to provide reliable empirical
182: templates in this region of the spectrum and higher spectral
183: resolution than currently available models, we have developed our
184: own templates. To do so we have exploited our knowledge of the star
185: formation history of galaxies over cosmic time \citep{Panter+07} to
186: help us build physically motivated templates.
187:
188: We present a test of the performance of this approach on
189: spectroscopic samples from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)
190: stripe 82 region. We find that, in the case where large
191: spectroscopic training sets are available, empirical
192: neural-network-based techniques (e.g., ANNz
193: \citealt{collister04,ANNz_SDSS_07}) give a $\sigma_z = 0.018(1+z)$
194: for optical photometry combined with GALEX observations. If large
195: spectroscopic training sets are not available, the addition of GALEX
196: data make possible the use of simple maximum likelihood techniques,
197: without resorting to Bayesian priors, and obtains $\sigma_z =
198: 0.04(1+z)$, which approaches the accuracy obtained using
199: spectroscopic training of neural networks on $ugriz$ observations.
200: In particular, we show how the large number of catastrophic failures
201: that occur for $griz$-based and $ugriz$-based maximum likelihood
202: photometric redshift determinations is nearly eliminated by adding
203: UV photometry from GALEX data. The improvement is especially notable
204: for blue galaxies with $g-r < 0.6$, for which photo-$z$ scatter of
205: $0.03 (1+z)$ is achieved on galaxies with $r<19$ and $z \lap 0.25$.
206: As noted below and by \cite{CFHT_photoz06}, the absence of the $u$
207: band significantly degrades the performance of the photo-$z$
208: estimation. We show that the addition of GALEX $UV$ observations is
209: preferable to the addition of optical $u$ band observations.
210:
211: The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in \S 2 we describe
212: our source sample. In \S 3 we present our method and details of the
213: implementation. In \S 4 we discuss our results. Conclusions are
214: presented in \S 5.
215:
216: \section{Source sample}
217:
218: Our GALEX observations comprise a Legacy program awarded in cycle 3,
219: with the goal of mapping $\sim$100 deg$^2$ with 3~ks exposure time
220: per pointing in both the $F_{UV}$ and $N_{UV}$ filters. We chose to
221: map roughly 11 deg$^2$ covering the Blanco Cosmology
222: Survey\footnote{cosmology.uiuc.edu/BCS} (BCS) 23-hour field at
223: declination -55$^\circ$ and a larger area of the equatorial stripe
224: 82, which is covered by SDSS. Both areas have $griz$ observations,
225: and SDSS also has $u$ observations. The BCS field is part of the
226: common SZ area survey; however, as there is currently no significant
227: sample of spectroscopic redshifts in the BCS region to validate our
228: photo-$z$, BCS analysis will not be presented here. The SDSS stripe
229: 82 has been observed by ACT and (of course) offers a sample of SDSS
230: spectroscopic redshifts to test the photo-$z$ performance. We took
231: advantage of the fact that the stripe 82 survey area includes a
232: number of the GALEX Medium Imaging Survey (MIS) fields, which
233: already had many $>1.5$ ks observations and therefore needed only
234: partial additional observations to reach our 3 ks target. In total
235: we will collect $\sim$210 ks of integration time
236: --- merely 2.4 days of observations.
237:
238: At the time this analysis was completed, only about half of the
239: planned observations had been made. The stripe 82 data set used for
240: this analysis is comprised of 56 GALEX fields ($\sim$55 deg$^2$ of
241: coverage, although some field edges lie outside the SDSS stripe 82
242: region) to $N_{UV}$ depths between 2 ks and 6.5 ks
243: (Fig.~\ref{fig:exposure_times}). These depths allow us to probe
244: deeper magnitudes and a more complete sample than has been possible
245: with previous photo-$z$ studies that used GALEX data
246: \citep{Budavari_photoz_2005,Way_photoz_2006,Ball_photoz_GALEX_2007}.
247: Of those fields, 41 are publicly available MIS data, and the other
248: 15 are from our guest investigator
249: proposal.\footnote{\cite{Niemack_thesis} describes the source sample
250: in more detail.}
251:
252: %FIGURE 1
253: %%%%%%%%%%%%
254: \begin{figure}
255: \begin{centering}
256: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{f1.ps}
257: \caption{Distribution of exposure times on the GALEX fields used in
258: this analysis for $N_{UV}$ (black) and $F_{UV}$ (red) observations.
259: Fields were only used with $N_{UV}$ exposure $>2$ ks.}
260: \label{fig:exposure_times}
261: \end{centering}
262: \end{figure}
263:
264: \subsection{Magnitudes}
265:
266: Accurate photometry is critical for obtaining accurate photo-$z$.
267: Because of the differences in the point spread functions (PSF) of
268: different instruments and between bands, simple aperture photometry
269: is not appropriate for this study. The SDSS PSF widths are
270: approximately 1.5$''$ and vary with sky brightness
271: \citep{ABAZAJIAN_SDSS_2003}, while GALEX PSF widths vary across the
272: field between roughly 4$''$ and 7$''$ \citep{Morrisey_GALEX_05}. Our
273: approach is to use AB magnitude measures that are as close as
274: possible to the total flux emitted by the galaxy in each band.
275:
276: As part of the standard GALEX pipeline for each field, SExtractor is
277: run on both the $F_{UV}$ and $N_{UV}$
278: images\footnote{galex.stsci.edu/GR2/?page=ddfaq\#2} to extract
279: multi-pixel sources that are detected above the noise threshold in
280: background-subtracted images \citep{Sextractor1996}. We use the
281: $N_{UV}$ and $F_{UV}$ {\it mag\_auto} outputs of SExtractor, which
282: optimizes elliptical apertures for each source to integrate the
283: total flux. The $F_{UV}$ bandwidth and transmission are both roughly
284: a factor of two smaller than the $N_{UV}$
285: (Figure~\ref{fig:templates}), causing it to have substantially lower
286: sensitivity. Because of this, far fewer sources are independently
287: detected in the $F_{UV}$ band.
288:
289: For the SDSS data we explored the use of both {\it C-model} and {\it
290: model} magnitude measurements. These magnitudes consist of fitting
291: models to the profile of the galaxy composed of an exponential disc
292: and a deVaucouleurs profile. The fits are integrated to three and
293: seven times the characteristic radius respectively, at which point
294: the function is truncated to smoothly go to zero within one
295: additional characteristic radius. For the {\it model} magnitudes all
296: bands are measured using the best fit model to the $r$-band data,
297: while for the {\it C-model} magnitudes, the two fits are weighted
298: based on the quality of the fit and combined to obtain the best
299: fitting profile for each filter
300: band.\footnote{www.sdss.org/dr5/algorithms/photometry.html} The {\it
301: C-model} measurement provides the best estimate of the total
302: photometric flux for each SDSS band.\footnote{While it may not be
303: the case for low signal-to-noise cases, in the high signal-to-noise
304: regime this procedure yields the total photometric flux and is not
305: affected by systematic errors. For the objects considered the SDSS
306: signal-to-noise is $> 5$.} While testing the template-fitting
307: photo-$z$ techniques (\S \ref{sec:SED_photoz_anal}) we found that
308: {\it model} magnitudes provide a better relative calibration when
309: comparing only SDSS bands (especially after adding the
310: \cite{Padmanabhan_Ubercal_2007} ``ubercalibration'' corrections);
311: however, the {\it C-model} magnitudes provide a better absolute
312: calibration for comparing with other instruments, such as GALEX.
313: Both {\it model} and {\it C-model} magnitudes were also tested using
314: the ANNz analysis described in \S \ref{sec:ANNz_anal}, and no
315: significant differences were found between the results using the
316: different magnitudes. The ANNz results presented in \S
317: \ref{sec:ANNzG_results} were calculated using {\it model}
318: magnitudes.
319:
320: Magnitude corrections of -0.04 and +0.02 are applied to the SDSS $u$
321: and $z$ bands respectively to convert from SDSS magnitudes into AB
322: magnitudes.\footnote{www.sdss.org/dr6/algorithms/fluxcal.html\#sdss2ab}
323: All reported magnitudes are in the AB system. In \S
324: \ref{sec:Results} we assess the performance of our photo-$z$
325: analysis on those SDSS galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts with
326: confidence $> 0.9$. SDSS objects are excluded from the catalog using
327: the ``blended,'' ``nodeblend,'' and ``saturated'' flags. The
328: majority of the SDSS spectroscopic measurements have $r < 18$,
329: although, there are also a substantial number of spectroscopic
330: measurements between $18<r<20$ (which are primarily Luminous Red
331: Galaxies), so we have limited our current analysis to the $r<20$
332: magnitude regime (except as discussed in
333: Fig.~\ref{fig:SDSS_ANN_BPZ_compare} and \S
334: \ref{sec:Photoz_catalog}).
335:
336: We emphasize that by using total magnitudes for each band we
337: minimize the potential problem of missing light because of choosing
338: an aperture in one band that does not encompass all the light in
339: other bands. Measuring the total light is important when using the
340: GALEX bands both because of the different PSF sizes and because most
341: of the star formation in galaxies takes place at the galaxy
342: perimeter; thus, a fixed aperture based on a single optical band can
343: exclude much of the light from recent star formation, which is
344: measured by the $UV$ bands.
345:
346: \subsection{Catalog matching}
347:
348: The GALEX and optical catalogs are merged as follows: we initially
349: assign optical sources to a GALEX field pointing if they fall within
350: 35.1$'$ of the GALEX field center. This cuts the noisiest region of
351: the GALEX fields (near the edges), while maintaining complete sky
352: coverage between neighboring fields (i.e. leaving no gaps). Within
353: every GALEX field, each optical source is matched to the nearest
354: GALEX object with a $N_{UV}$ detection within a 4$''$ radius, which
355: is a relatively conservative matching radius
356: \citep{Agueros_GALEX_SDSS_2005}. After all sources in the field are
357: assigned, the combined catalog is searched to test whether any two
358: optical sources are assigned to the same GALEX object. When there
359: are overlapping assignments, the closest source to the GALEX
360: position is selected and the other is removed from the
361: catalog.\footnote{Removing sources with overlapping assignments was
362: also explored and had negligible impact on the results in this paper
363: since so few sources had overlapping assignments.} Sources that do
364: not have a GALEX detection or overlapping assignments are kept in
365: the catalog for spectroscopic confirmation tests. We characterize
366: the distributions of GALEX $F_{UV}$ and $N_{UV}$ magnitudes in each
367: field using histograms with 0.1 magnitude bins. The magnitude limit
368: used for other sources in the same field during photo-$z$ analysis
369: is set to be the highest magnitude where the number of galaxies
370: exceeds half of the number at the peak magnitude bin
371: \citep{Niemack_thesis}. Sources with magnitudes higher than this
372: limit (as well as objects with no $N_{UV}$ detection) are labeled as
373: non-detections, and this magnitude limit is used for the
374: non-detections in the photo-$z$ calculation (\S
375: \ref{sec:photoz_methods}).
376:
377: In 56 GALEX fields in stripe 82, $\sim$3000 SDSS sources with
378: spectroscopic redshifts were found that meet the above criteria. Of
379: these sources, 75\% were found to have $N_{UV}$ detections within
380: the 4$''$ matching radius, and only two pairs of them were matched
381: to the same GALEX source. Only seven of the sources had $r > 20$,
382: which we treat as the magnitude limit of the spectroscopic analysis.
383: When generating the photo-$z$ catalogs, we also use SDSS objects
384: without spectroscopic data. In the same 56 GALEX fields almost
385: 150,000 SDSS sources were found with magnitude $r<21$, and 55\% of
386: those were successfully matched to GALEX sources. Less than 1\% of
387: those were excluded because they were matched to the same GALEX
388: source as another optical source. Both catalogs were also searched
389: for SDSS sources with multiple GALEX sources within a 4$''$ radius,
390: and none were found in the spectroscopic catalog, while nine were
391: found in the photometric sample and were removed from the catalog.
392:
393: \section{Methods} \label{sec:photoz_methods}
394:
395: After adding the GALEX bands, we consider two different approaches
396: for computing the photo-z. First we describe a spectral energy
397: distribution (SED, or template-based) photo-$z$ calculation
398: technique and the new SED templates that we have developed. This
399: approach assumes no prior knowledge of the redshift distribution and
400: does not require spectroscopic measurements. Our second approach is
401: to analyze the same GALEX plus optical catalog using ANNz techniques
402: to train the photo-$z$ calculation with the SDSS spectroscopic
403: measurements.
404:
405: To quantify the accuracy of different photo-$z$ analyses, we define
406: the redshift error as
407: \begin{equation}
408: dz \equiv \frac{(z_{ph} - z_{sp})}{(1+z_{sp})},
409: \end{equation}
410: where $z_{ph}$ is the photo-$z$ and $z_{sp}$ is the spectroscopic
411: $z$. The mean, $z^{bias}$, and standard deviation, $\sigma_z$, of
412: $dz$ (i.e. the photo-$z$ bias and scatter) are calculated for all
413: galaxies with $z_{ph}<1$, which is motivated by the fact that given
414: the optical and $UV$ depths, we do not expect to detect galaxies
415: near or above $z=1$. In the SDSS results presented, these $z>1$
416: failures amount to less than 1\% of the galaxies in the
417: spectroscopic catalog and $\sim$1\% of the GALEX detected galaxies
418: with $r<20$ in the photometric catalog. A final cut is made on
419: objects with $N_{UV} - g > 1$ as this color is typical of QSO's
420: rather than galaxies. This cut also removes less than 1\% of the
421: complete SDSS spectroscopic catalog and $\sim$3\% of the GALEX
422: detected galaxies with $r<20$ in the photometric catalog.
423:
424: The analysis is done on different combinations of the seven optical
425: (SDSS) and $UV$ bands. This allows us to study the impact of
426: including different bands on photo-$z$ accuracy and thus estimate
427: the importance of different bands for future observations. Our
428: photo-$z$ are then compared to the recently published results of the
429: SDSS ANNz photo-$z$ pipeline (henceforth ANNz;
430: \citealt{ANNz_SDSS_07}), which was developed using a spectroscopic
431: training and validation set comprised of $\sim$640,000 galaxies
432: (Fig.~\ref{fig:ML_comparisons}).
433:
434: We note that when reporting standard deviations to study the
435: performance of the photo-$z$ we have {\em not} excluded outliers
436: (with the exception of cutting the small number of galaxies with
437: $z>1$). Excluding or down-weighting outliers is common practice in
438: the photo-z literature, motivated by the fact that the photo-$z$
439: error distribution often is a Gaussian around the peak but has long
440: tails. As we quote standard deviations with the outliers included,
441: caution is needed when comparing our numbers with those in the
442: literature. In particular, for the maximum likelihood analysis
443: presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:ML_comparisons}, the standard
444: down-weighting of the outliers would reduce the $ugriz$ photo-$z$
445: scatter by 20\% and the GALEX + $griz$ photo-$z$ scatter by 15\%,
446: while having a much smaller effect on the SDSS ANNz performance.
447:
448: \subsection{New spectral templates for photo-$z$}
449:
450: For template-based photo-$z$ calculation, we need a basis of
451: spectral templates that represents galaxies in the redshift range of
452: interest and for the magnitude range of the catalog. The approach in
453: the literature so far has been to either use empirical templates
454: \citep{cww_templates80,Kin_templates96} or use synthetic models with
455: simple receipes to model the star formation law in galaxies, most
456: typically using a declining exponential.
457:
458: Recent advances in both observations and stellar modeling have
459: allowed different groups to determine the complete star formation
460: history of galaxies \citep{heavens04,fernandes2005,Panter+07} for a
461: wide range of galaxy stellar masses ($10^7 - 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$).
462: \citet{Panter+07} found that stellar mass is the parameter that most
463: directly determines the galaxy's star formation history and SED.
464: Taking advantage of this finding, we use six mass ranges with their
465: corresponding reconstructed star formation histories, to obtain six
466: spectral templates. These templates should encompass the entire
467: galaxy population and are therefore a representative basis of
468: galaxies in the universe. The spectral templates are built using the
469: input star formation history with solar metallicity (changing the
470: template metallicity has little impact on the final photo-$z$
471: performance) using the \citet{BC03} models. The models have only
472: absorption lines, so for the star-bursting galaxy template (SED5 in
473: Fig.~\ref{fig:templates}) we use the emission lines from the
474: \citet{Kin_templates96} models and add them to this template only.
475: The new templates -- shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:templates} -- provide a
476: higher resolution and wider spectral range than other publicly
477: available templates. Note that we have not adjusted the templates to
478: obtain the best photometric redshifts, but rather we have used the
479: physical knowledge of the recovered star formation history of the
480: universe as our input. We evaluate the performance of these new
481: templates below.
482:
483: %%%%%%%% FIGURE 2
484: \begin{figure}
485: \begin{centering}
486: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f2.ps}
487: \caption{The top panel shows the six galaxy templates that are used
488: to find the maximum likelihood solution for the photometric
489: redshifts (\S \ref{sec:SED_photoz_anal}). The vertical dashed lines
490: show the central frequencies of the GALEX and SDSS bandpasses. The
491: middle panel shows the two GALEX bands ($F_{UV}$, $N_{UV}$) as well
492: as the five SDSS bands ($u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, $z$). The bottom panel
493: shows the templates redshifted to $z=1$. As the different galaxy
494: types are redshifted, a redshift-brightness degeneracy arises in the
495: optical bands (especially when only considering $griz$ bands) for
496: the galaxies with blue spectra. The addition of the GALEX bands
497: breaks this degeneracy by sampling out to the 912~\AA\ Lyman-limit.
498: Note that by $z=1$ the Lyman-limit has shifted out of the $F_{UV}$
499: band, but it does not reach the central frequency of the more
500: sensitive $N_{UV}$ band until $z\approx1.5$.} \label{fig:templates}
501: \end{centering}
502: \end{figure}
503:
504:
505: \subsection{Template fitting photo-$z$ calculation} \label{sec:SED_photoz_anal}
506:
507: With the addition of the two GALEX bands, our template-based
508: methodology to obtain photo-$z$ is fairly simple. We use the six
509: galaxy templates in Fig.~\ref{fig:templates} and perform a maximum
510: likelihood (ML) analysis, which is simply a chi-square minimization,
511: to find the best fitting model to the observed photometry. No priors
512: are used for this analysis, or more accurately, we assume flat
513: redshift and template priors. We use two codes to compute the
514: photo-$z$: BPZ\footnote{Code version bpz.1.98b;
515: acs.pha.jhu.edu/$\sim$txitxo/bpzdoc.html} \citep{bpz} which has the
516: ability to simultaneously calculate photo-$z$ using both ML analysis
517: and a Bayesian prior for comparison, and
518: ZEBRA\footnote{www.exp-astro.phys.ethz.ch/ZEBRA/} \citep{zebra}
519: which is a recently released independent code that uses similar
520: techniques to BPZ. Most of our analysis will be done using BPZ
521: because when including the $UV$ data it performs significantly
522: better than ZEBRA on our data set in the redshift range $0.25 < z <
523: 0.4$; although, we note that slightly better results can be obtained
524: by ZEBRA at $z < 0.25$.\footnote{The same differences between BPZ
525: and ZEBRA were observed with a variety of galaxy templates when
526: using the GALEX data; however, when the optical data is analyzed
527: without GALEX data, BPZ and ZEBRA provide nearly identical results.}
528:
529: The observed magnitudes are matched to the predicted spectral energy
530: distributions through each bandpass from the templates in
531: Fig.~\ref{fig:templates}. As suggested by \cite{bpz}, two points of
532: interpolation are allowed between the different templates in color
533: space, which allows the best fit template to be a (2:1 or 1:2) mix
534: of two neighboring templates. The photo-$z$ computation is set to
535: have a precision of $\delta z = 0.01$. The only limit imposed in the
536: ML calculation is a sharp prior $z < 1.5$; further, (as described
537: above) we exclude from the sample the small number of sources with
538: photo-$z$ $>1$.
539:
540:
541: \subsection{Artificial neural-network photo-$z$ calculation}
542: \label{sec:ANNz_anal}
543:
544: We also consider the empirical photo-$z$ method ANNz developed by
545: \cite{collister04}. We compare the performance of our template-based
546: photo-$z$ method to the results of \citet{ANNz_SDSS_07}, who trained
547: and validated their artificial neural network on 640,000 galaxies
548: with $ugriz$ SDSS photometry and provide a photo-$z$ catalog for
549: SDSS galaxies with $r<22$. We use their photo-$z$ determinations for
550: the galaxies in our sample as a benchmark to compare the performance
551: of our template-based technique (\S \ref{sec:SDSS_spec} and
552: Fig.~\ref{fig:ML_comparisons}, \ref{fig:zerr_z},
553: \ref{fig:zerr_r_mag}, and \ref{fig:zerr_gr}). ANNz in this case
554: yields a photo-$z$ scatter of $\sigma_z=0.027(1+z)$.
555:
556: To explore the photo-$z$ potential of GALEX observations in more
557: detail, we also use the publicly available ANNz
558: code\footnote{zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/$\sim$lahav/annz.html} with
559: our combined GALEX and SDSS catalog to obtain more accurate
560: photo-$z$ (henceforth ANNzG). We use as a training set the SDSS
561: galaxies in our GALEX fields that also have spectra. Of the
562: $\sim$$3000$ objects with SDSS spectroscopic redshifts in our
563: catalog $700$ are used as our training set and $400$ as our
564: validation set. We then re-run ANNz on the full $\sim$$3000$ objects
565: to estimate its performance (\S \ref{sec:ANNzG_results}). Two
566: different network architectures were explored for the ANNzG
567: analysis: one with five hidden layers with 10 nodes each and three
568: committee members, and a simpler version with two hidden layers with
569: 10 nodes each and no committee. The more complex architecture did
570: result in a slight reduction of the photo-$z$ scatter; however, the
571: relative results of using different data combinations were nearly
572: identical. We present the results of the simpler network analysis
573: here. Note that all galaxies in the specified magnitude range are
574: included in the ANNz and ANNzG analysis, since (unlike the
575: template-based analysis) there are no galaxies with photo-$z>1$, and
576: because of the nature of the ANNz calculation, it can also
577: simultaneously calculate the photo-$z$ for the bluest objects, such
578: as QSOs.
579:
580:
581: \section{Results} \label{sec:Results}
582:
583: \subsection{Photo-$z$ analysis with no priors} \label{sec:SDSS_spec}
584:
585: %%%%%%%% FIGURE 3
586: \begin{figure*}
587: \begin{centering}
588: \includegraphics[width=1.76\columnwidth]{f3.ps}
589: \caption{Comparison of our maximum likelihood photo-$z$ redshift
590: estimates ($z$\_ML) and the ANNz estimates ($z$\_ANNz) with SDSS
591: spectroscopic measurements ($z$\_sp). The colors on the five similar
592: plots are different $r$ magnitude bins. The top panels show
593: photo-$z$ estimates using only the optical $griz$ (left) and $ugriz$
594: (right) data. Adding the $u$-band data significantly improves the
595: estimates, but in both analyses large groups of outliers exist in
596: the $0.4 <$ $z$\_ML $< 0.6$ range. By adding the GALEX data (middle
597: panels), this group of outliers is removed, and the photo-$z$
598: predictions fall much closer to the spectroscopic measurements. Note
599: that BPZ consistently results in an excess of galaxies in the lowest
600: $z$ bins, so the scatter and bias are quoted in the legends both for
601: all galaxies and for those with photo-$z > 0.03$. In the lower left
602: panel, we show the SDSS ANNz photo-$z$ estimates for comparison. The
603: ANNz technique does result in less scatter than adding the GALEX
604: data; however, ANNz is being compared to a subset of its redshift
605: training and validation set, as opposed to the ML analysis, which
606: does not utilize any prior redshift information. The lower right
607: panel compares the redshift distributions from the five photo-$z$
608: analyses (colors) with the spectroscopic measurements (black).}
609: \label{fig:ML_comparisons}
610: \end{centering}
611: \end{figure*}
612:
613: The addition of GALEX data to the optical measurements alleviates
614: the redshift-brightness degeneracy and greatly improves the
615: photo-$z$ estimation. In Fig.~\ref{fig:ML_comparisons}, the
616: upper-left panel shows the ML recovered photo-$z$ when using only
617: $griz$ data. As expected, the number of catastrophic failures is
618: high, resulting in a large standard deviation of $\sigma_z= 0.17
619: (1+z)$. Addition of the $u$ band data (upper-right panel) reduces
620: the number of catastrophic failures and halves the standard
621: deviation to $\sigma_z=0.08 (1+z)$.\footnote{We note that the
622: standard deviation of the $ugriz$ analysis is reduced by a 25\% to
623: $\sigma_z=0.06 (1+z)$ if SDSS {\em model} magnitudes are used. These
624: are the best internally calibrated magnitudes for SDSS photometry,
625: however, the model magnitudes cause the photo-$z$ bias to increase
626: by more than an order of magnitude when used with the GALEX data.}
627: Including the GALEX data (middle panels) reduces the standard
628: deviation to $\sigma_z=0.04 (1+z)$ and removes nearly all
629: catastrophic failures. Note that the addition of $u$ data has
630: negligible effect when the GALEX bands are added. The bottom-left
631: panel shows the comparison with ANNz. The standard deviation of ANNz
632: is $\sim$30\% smaller than GALEX + $griz$; although, we note that
633: ANNz is being compared to a sample that includes its own training
634: and validation set, which makes the comparison a bit unfair. We find
635: that simply adding the GALEX moderate exposures to $griz$ imaging
636: and using ML analysis techniques with 6 empirically motivated galaxy
637: templates provides photo-$z$ approaching the accuracy of ANNz on
638: $ugriz$.
639:
640:
641: %%%%%%% FIG 4
642: \begin{figure}
643: \begin{centering}
644: \includegraphics[width=0.91\columnwidth]{f4.ps}
645: \caption{Errors in photo-$z$ estimation versus spectroscopic
646: redshift. The mean (top) and standard deviation (middle) of $dz$ are
647: shown as a function of redshift. We compare the ML photo-$z$ results
648: using the SDSS $griz$ data (green), which is representative of the
649: BCS measurements, as well as the SDSS $ugriz$ data (red), the GALEX
650: + $griz$ data (black), and the SDSS ANNz results (blue). The GALEX +
651: $griz$ data approaches the standard deviation of the ANNz results
652: without the use of priors or training sets. We also show the
653: improvement that can be achieved in the GALEX + $griz$ analysis by
654: using the ZEBRA code for $z_{ph} < 0.25$ and BPZ code otherwise,
655: which we call BPZebra (black dashed). In the bottom panel, the total
656: number of sources in each $z$ bin is shown (black) as well as the
657: total number of sources with a GALEX detection (red). }
658: \label{fig:zerr_z}
659: \end{centering}
660: \end{figure}
661:
662: %%%%%%% FIG 5
663: \begin{figure}
664: \begin{centering}
665: \includegraphics[width=0.91\columnwidth]{f5.ps}
666: \caption{Errors in photo-$z$ estimation versus source $r$ magnitude.
667: The mean (top) and standard deviation (middle) of $dz$ are shown in
668: different $r$ bins. (Colors are the same as Fig.~\ref{fig:zerr_z}
669: and \ref{fig:zerr_gr}.) The GALEX + $griz$ data approaches the
670: standard deviation of the ANNz results without the use of priors or
671: training sets. At the bottom, the total number of sources in each
672: $r$ bin is shown (black) as well as the total number of sources with
673: a GALEX detection (red). } \label{fig:zerr_r_mag}
674: \end{centering}
675: \end{figure}
676:
677: %%%%%%% FIG 6
678: \begin{figure}
679: \begin{centering}
680: \includegraphics[width=0.91\columnwidth]{f6.ps}
681: \caption{Errors in photo-$z$ estimation versus color, $g-r$. The
682: mean (top) and standard deviation (middle) of $dz$ are shown in
683: different $g-r$ bins. (Colors are the same as Fig.~\ref{fig:zerr_z}
684: and \ref{fig:zerr_r_mag}.) For the low $g-r$ bins, or blue galaxies,
685: the standard deviation of the GALEX + $griz$ results are a huge
686: improvement over the SDSS only data and are essentially equivalent
687: to the ANNz results without the use of priors or training sets. At
688: the bottom, the total number of sources in each $g-r$ bin is shown
689: (black) as well as the total number of sources with a GALEX
690: detection (red). } \label{fig:zerr_gr}
691: \end{centering}
692: \end{figure}
693:
694:
695: We explore the performance of the photo-$z$ in more detail in
696: Fig.~\ref{fig:zerr_z}, \ref{fig:zerr_r_mag}, and \ref{fig:zerr_gr}
697: to investigate the dependence on redshift, magnitude, and color,
698: respectively. In Fig.~\ref{fig:zerr_z} we show how the photo-$z$
699: bias and scatter evolve as a function of redshift. Adding the GALEX
700: data dramatically reduces the bias and scatter over the optical
701: bands alone at $z<0.3$, beyond which the proportion of galaxies with
702: GALEX detections falls off at the current GALEX observation depths
703: (Fig.~\ref{fig:zerr_z}, bottom panel). Still, the performance
704: approaches the level of ANNz up to near $z \approx 0.4$. In
705: Fig.~\ref{fig:zerr_r_mag} we show the photo-$z$ bias and scatter as
706: a function of the source $r$ magnitude. Both remain nearly flat in
707: the regime $r < 19$, above which the fraction of galaxies detected
708: by GALEX falls to less than 1/2. These plots clearly indicate that
709: with deeper GALEX exposures, we can expect to improve our results
710: for fainter objects and higher redshifts. In Fig.~\ref{fig:zerr_gr}
711: the photo-$z$ performance as a function of galaxy color is examined.
712: The scatter is equivalent to (or possibly even lower than) ANNz for
713: $g-r < 0.6$ and is only slightly larger up to $g-r \approx 2$. When
714: compared to the other ML methods without GALEX photometry, the
715: addition of GALEX bands returns significantly more accurate
716: photo-$z$ for colors as red as $g-r = 1.4$.
717:
718: We also consider removal of the excess of galaxies in the lowest BPZ
719: redshift bins ($z<0.03$). Cutting these galaxies results in a
720: $\sim$5\% reduction of the standard deviation and almost a factor of
721: ten reduction in bias (Fig~\ref{fig:ML_comparisons}, middle panels).
722: At $z_{ph}<0.25$ ZEBRA photo-$z$ scatter is $\sim$8\% smaller than
723: BPZ and does not show the excess in the lowest $z$ bin. A hybrid
724: technique (ZEBRA at $z_{ph}<0.25$ and BPZ at $z_{ph}>0.25$, which we
725: call BPZebra) can be used to take advantage of the fact that ZEBRA
726: does not have a pile-up of galaxies at low-$z$, which reduces the
727: total scatter by $\sim$8\% and reduces the total bias by a similar
728: amount to cutting the low-$z$ galaxies (dashed line in
729: Fig.~\ref{fig:zerr_z}).
730:
731: \subsection{ANNz analysis for improving stripe 82 photo-$z$}
732: \label{sec:ANNzG_results}
733:
734: The performance of ANNz using GALEX data (ANNzG, \S
735: \ref{sec:ANNz_anal}) is explored with several combinations of SDSS
736: bands.\footnote{We note that the training and validation sets are a
737: random sub-sample of 36\% of the catalog.} The best performance is
738: (not surprisingly) obtained with all five SDSS bands and GALEX
739: (ANNzG: $ugriz$); in this case the scatter is $\sigma_z = 0.018
740: (1+z)$. Removing the SDSS $u$ (ANNzG: $griz$) or $u$ and $z$ (ANNzG:
741: $gri$) bands only causes slight degradations in the photo-$z$
742: scatters to $\sigma_z \approx 0.020 (1+z)$. As a systematic test of
743: our ANNzG approach, we run the same analysis on the SDSS $ugriz$
744: data in our catalog and find that it gives $\sigma_z = 0.026 (1+z)$,
745: which is consistent with the scatter from the \citet{ANNz_SDSS_07}
746: ANNz pipeline on this data set of $\sigma_z \approx 0.027 (1+z)$.
747: These results combined with the results in \S \ref{sec:SDSS_spec}
748: indicate that the GALEX bands provide superior redshift information
749: to the SDSS $u$ and/or $z$ bands.
750:
751: \begin{figure}
752: \begin{centering}
753: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{f7.ps}
754: \caption{Artificial neural network photo-$z$ scatter as a function
755: of galaxy color, $g-r$ (top panel), and magnitude, $r$ (bottom
756: panel), analyzed as described in \S \ref{sec:ANNz_anal} for
757: different combinations of SDSS and GALEX data. The scatter is
758: compared to the performance of the \citet{ANNz_SDSS_07} photo-$z$
759: pipeline (ANNz, SDSS $ugriz$, blue) on the same data set. The
760: addition of GALEX data to $ugriz$ data (ANNzG: $ugriz$, green)
761: provides the best photo-$z$ predictions, while GALEX combined with
762: $griz$ (ANNzG: $griz$, red) and even just $gri$ (ANNzG: $gri$,
763: black) only results in slight increases in scatter compared to the
764: complete data set. This indicates that the GALEX data provides more
765: redshift information than the SDSS $u$ or $z$ bands. As a systematic
766: check, we have run identical ANNz analysis on the SDSS $ugriz$ data
767: without GALEX (No GALEX $ugriz$, magenta), and we find that the
768: scatter distribution is similar to that recovered by
769: \citet{ANNz_SDSS_07}, both as a function of $g-r$ and $r$. The
770: galaxy distributions in the scatter bins are those shown in the
771: bottom panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:zerr_r_mag} and
772: \ref{fig:zerr_gr}.}\label{fig:Annz_gr_errors}
773: \end{centering}
774: \end{figure}
775:
776: In Fig.~\ref{fig:Annz_gr_errors} we explore the color, $g-r$, and
777: magnitude, $r$, dependence of the photo-$z$ scatter from the ANNzG
778: and ANNz calculations. The addition of the GALEX data results in a
779: clear and significant reduction in scatter for nearly all color and
780: magnitude bins, with the exception of the reddest (high $g-r$) and
781: brightest (low $r$) galaxies. The general consistency between trends
782: in the ANNz pipeline results (ANNz, SDSS $ugriz$ in legend) and our
783: own analysis applied to the SDSS only data (No GALEX $ugriz$ in
784: legend) is an indication that our ANNzG results are robust. The
785: photo-$z$ bias was also explored, and it was found to be roughly
786: five to twenty times smaller than the scatter in each bin, so we do
787: not discuss it further.
788:
789:
790: \subsection{Public Photo-$z$ Catalogs} \label{sec:Photoz_catalog}
791:
792: Here we apply our ML (\S \ref{sec:SED_photoz_anal}) and ANNzG (\S
793: \ref{sec:ANNz_anal}) approaches for calculating photo-$z$ to stripe
794: 82 galaxies that do not have spectroscopic data. The redshift
795: distributions from these analyses as well as the SDSS ANNz pipeline
796: are compared in Fig.~\ref{fig:SDSS_ANN_BPZ_compare}. The top and
797: bottom panels show the redshift distributions for galaxies with
798: $r<19$ and $r<21$, respectively. Because of the lack of SDSS
799: spectroscopic observations for GALEX detected galaxies with $r>19$
800: (Fig.~\ref{fig:zerr_r_mag}) and $z>0.3$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:zerr_z}), the
801: current ANNzG analysis does not have accurate training above this
802: limit. The excess number of galaxies at $z \approx 0.3$ in the lower
803: panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:SDSS_ANN_BPZ_compare} is due to the resulting
804: failure of the ANNzG analysis for galaxies with $r>19$. As expected,
805: this clearly indicates that to use empirical photo-$z$ techniques
806: one must ensure that spectroscopic training sets are representative
807: of the complete photometric sample.
808:
809: %%%%%FIGURE 8
810: \begin{figure}
811: \begin{centering}
812: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{f8.ps}
813: \caption{Comparison of photo-$z$ distributions for SDSS data with
814: GALEX detections. The top panel shows data with $r<19$. The ML
815: analysis (black), the ANNzG analysis (red), and the SDSS ANNz
816: results (blue) are all relatively similar in this magnitude regime.
817: The bottom panel compares the same three analyses on data with
818: $r<21$. The ANNzG analysis clearly fails here, because the current
819: training set utilizes SDSS spectroscopic measurements, which have a
820: lower magnitude distribution (Fig.~\ref{fig:zerr_r_mag}, bottom
821: panel). The ML analysis distribution has some failures as well, but
822: it has significantly less bias than the ANNzG analysis. The excess
823: in the lowest $z$ bin has been observed in all ML analyses with
824: GALEX data (Fig.~\ref{fig:ML_comparisons}). In our public catalogs,
825: the ANNzG and ML results are provided for all galaxies with $r<19$,
826: while ML results are provided for all galaxies detected by GALEX
827: with $r<21$.} \label{fig:SDSS_ANN_BPZ_compare}
828: \end{centering}
829: \end{figure}
830:
831: The ML analysis, on the other hand, does not require spectroscopic
832: training, and the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:SDSS_ANN_BPZ_compare}
833: shows that the ML analysis on galaxies detected by GALEX produces a
834: similar distribution to the SDSS ANNz pipeline even for dimmer
835: galaxies with $19<r<21$. The primary difference between the ML and
836: ANNz distributions is the excess in the ML lowest redshift bin,
837: which is a known failure of the BPZ code used for this analysis
838: (described in \S \ref{sec:SDSS_spec}).
839:
840: The resulting catalogs containing both the ML and ANNzG analyses for
841: galaxies observed by GALEX will be made publicly available for the
842: community at www.ice.csic.es/personal/jimenez/PHOTOZ. The catalogs
843: will be updated with more complete versions as our GALEX stripe 82
844: observations are completed. Since the ANNzG analysis has only been
845: trained up to $r\approx19$, we provide an ANNzG photo-$z$ catalog
846: for all SDSS galaxies up to this limit as well as ML photo-$z$ on
847: those same galaxies. Since the ML analysis does not require
848: spectroscopic training, we also provide a catalog with ML photo-$z$
849: estimates for all SDSS galaxies that have GALEX detections and
850: $r<21$.
851:
852:
853: \section{Conclusions}
854:
855: In order to obtain accurate photometric redshifts as efficiently as
856: possible for the areas surveyed by SZ experiments, we have obtained
857: moderate-depth GALEX photometry. With a modest observing campaign,
858: and using already available MIS observations, we have already
859: covered an area of $\sim$60 deg$^2$ to a mean depth of $\sim$3 ks.
860: At the completion of our $\sim$210 ks of observations, we will have
861: covered $\sim$100 deg$^2$ to this depth.
862:
863: \cite{Budavari_photoz_2005} previously used $ugriz$ SDSS DR1
864: photometry together with GALEX Medium Imaging Survey (MIS, 1.4 ks
865: exposure) $F_{UV}$ and $N_{UV}$ photometry to determine photo-$z$
866: for about 10000 galaxies up to $z \approx 0.25$. They use an
867: empirical technique which relies on a training set of about 6000
868: objects, and obtained photo-z errors of $\sigma_z=0.026$ on the
869: training set, which is similar to the SDSS ANNz performance. As
870: large training sets and $u$-band data may not be available for the
871: next generation large-area SZ cluster surveys and as $u$-band
872: photometry may not be available for future optical surveys such as
873: BCS, DES, and LSST, we have considered two cases.
874:
875: To be independent of training sets, we considered a
876: spectral-energy-distribution, or template-based, photo-$z$ approach.
877: As we have found that suitable templates for use with GALEX
878: observations were not publicly available, we have constructed new,
879: physically motivated, spectral templates. They are publicly
880: available at www.ice.csic.es/personal/jimenez/PHOTOZ.
881:
882: Using the SDSS spectroscopic survey we have shown that the addition
883: of GALEX photometry to only $griz$ bands makes possible the use of
884: simple maximum likelihood techniques, without resorting to Bayesian
885: priors. This approach obtains $\sigma_z = 0.04(1+z)$ for $r<20$
886: galaxies, which includes luminous galaxies up to $z \approx 0.4$.
887: This accuracy approaches that obtained using spectroscopic training
888: of neural networks on $ugriz$ photometry of the same galaxy sample.
889: In particular, we have shown that the large number of catastrophic
890: failures that occur for $griz$-based and $ugriz$-based maximum
891: likelihood photo-$z$ determinations is nearly eliminated by adding
892: UV photometry from GALEX data to $griz$ data. The improvement is
893: especially notable for blue galaxies; for galaxies with $g-r < 0.6$,
894: we obtain photo-$z$ scatter of $\sim$$0.03 (1+z)$. We find that the
895: addition of UV observations to $griz$ photometry, provides
896: significantly better photo-$z$ than the addition of $u$-band
897: observations.
898:
899: Beyond $z \approx 0.4$, the GALEX $\sim$3 ks exposures do not have a
900: sufficient number of detections to dramatically improve the $griz$
901: observations. Clearly, moderately deeper observations would help to
902: bring the utility of GALEX observations closer to $z \approx 1$. We
903: note that the current depth of $z \approx 0.4$ looks back through
904: roughly 33\% of the age of the universe and samples a volume of 15
905: Gpc$^3$. Maybe more importantly, $\sim$20\% of the clusters that
906: will be detected by the SZ experiments (above a dark matter mass of
907: $3 \times 10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$) are at $z < 0.4$. If redshift up to
908: $z=1$ were accessible by GALEX, $\sim$60\% of the age of the
909: universe and a volume of 153 Gpc$^{3}$ would be surveyed; 86\% of
910: the clusters that will be detected by the SZ experiments (above a
911: dark matter mass of $3 \times 10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$) and 90\% of the
912: resolved ones, are expected to be at $z < 1$.
913:
914: The most important aspect of the results presented here, is that the
915: photo-$z$ accuracy of $\sigma_z =0.04(1+z)$ at $z< 0.4$ was obtained
916: using only maximum-likelihood fits to six galaxy templates in BPZ,
917: without resorting to priors or training-sets. As the acquisition of
918: training sets or priors relies on obtaining large spectroscopic
919: data-sets, we consider the moderate GALEX exposures an efficient way
920: to obtain accurate photo-$z$ over large areas.\footnote{Note that we
921: just integrated $\sim$2.4 days and that, for example, a program 10
922: times longer could provide photo-$z$ for about 1000 deg$^2$, which
923: (we estimate) is the optimal area to extract cosmological
924: information from SZ surveys} Further, GALEX photometry gives a
925: direct measurement of star formation and AGN activity
926: \citep{AtleeGould07}, a subject that we are continuing to explore.
927:
928: Should large spectroscopic training sets be available, we have
929: considered the effect of adding UV photometry to optical data on the
930: performance of an artificial neural network photo-$z$ calculation.
931: The addition of GALEX observations to optical $griz$ (or even just
932: $gri$) observations yields photo-$z$ that have $\sigma_z = 0.02
933: (1+z)$, which is $\sim$30\% smaller scatter than was obtained on the
934: same data set using only SDSS $ugriz$ observations.
935:
936: We make our photo-$z$ catalogs of stripe 82 galaxies detected by
937: GALEX publicly available at www.ice.csic.es/personal/jimenez/PHOTOZ.
938: The catalogs contain the results of the ML photo-$z$ calculation for
939: all GALEX detected galaxies with $r<21$ as well as the ANNzG and ML
940: photo-$z$ calculations for all SDSS stripe 82 galaxies in GALEX
941: fields with $r<19$. The posted catalogs will be updated as our GALEX
942: observations and analysis are completed.
943:
944: The approach proposed here can provide a useful catalog for
945: weak-lensing studies as photo-$z$ remain accurate for the bluest
946: galaxies. These determinations are commonly the most difficult to
947: obtain because spectra of blue galaxies in the optical bands show an
948: almost featureless power law spectral energy distribution. We
949: envision our SED-based ML approach to be useful for
950: cross-correlation studies with CMB maps, where deep photo-$z$ are
951: needed over large areas and large training sets may not be
952: available. Possible applications of these studies include improving
953: our understanding of dark energy using cluster counting techniques
954: \citep{SPT_white,lima-hu07}, the kSZ effect \citep{carlosksz}, and
955: the lensing of the CMB by large-scale structure \citep{melita}.
956:
957: \section*{Acknowledgements}
958:
959: MN is grateful to Robert Lupton, John Hughes, Yen-Ting Lin, and
960: Chris Hirata for their useful and informative discussions and
961: suggestions as well as Peter Friedman for help with the GALEX data
962: and his advisor, Suzanne Staggs, for supporting his work on this
963: project. RJ and LV thank Txitxo Ben{\'{\i}}tez for helpful
964: discussions. The research of MN is supported by the U.S. National
965: Science Foundation through grant PHY-0355328 as well as a Princeton
966: University Centennial Fellowship. RJ acknowledges support from
967: FP7-PEOPLE-2007-4-3-IRG grant and CSIC I3 grant 200750I037. LV
968: acknowledges support of FP7-PEOPLE-2007-4-3-IRGn202182 and CSIC I3
969: grant 200750I034. RJ and LV are partially supported by GALEX grant
970: GI3-095. RJ and DNS are partially supported by NSF grant
971: PIRE-0507768.
972:
973: Funding for the creation and distribution of the SDSS Archive has
974: been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating
975: Institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
976: National Science Foundation, the US Department of Energy, the
977: Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS Web
978: site is www.sdss.org. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical
979: Research Consortium (ARC) for the Participating Institutions. The
980: Participating Institutions are the University of Chicago, Fermilab,
981: the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, The
982: Johns Hopkins University, the Korean Scientist Group, Los Alamos
983: National Laboratory, the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (MPIA),
984: the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
985: University, the University of Pittsburgh, Princeton University, the
986: United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
987:
988: The Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) is a NASA Small Explorer
989: (www.galex.caltech.edu). The mission was developed in cooperation
990: with the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales of France and the Korean
991: Ministry of Science and Technology.
992:
993: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
994:
995: \bibitem[Abazajian et al.(2003)]{ABAZAJIAN_SDSS_2003}
996: Abazajian, K., et al.\ 2003, Astron. J., 126:2081-2086.
997:
998: \bibitem[Ag\"ueros et al.(2005)]{Agueros_GALEX_SDSS_2005}
999: Ag\"ueros, M., et al.\ 2005, Astron. J., {130}:1022-1036.
1000:
1001: \bibitem[Atlee \& Gould(2007)]{AtleeGould07} Atlee, D.~W., \& Gould,
1002: A.\ 2007, \apj, 664:53.
1003:
1004: \bibitem[Ball et al.(2007)]{Ball_photoz_GALEX_2007}
1005: Ball, N., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 663:774.
1006:
1007: \bibitem[Baum(1962)]{Baum}
1008: Baum, W.~A.\ 1962, Problems of Extra-Galactic Research, 15, 390.
1009:
1010: \bibitem[Ben{\'{\i}}tez(2000)]{bpz}
1011: Ben{\'{\i}}tez, N.\ 2000, \apj, 536:571.
1012:
1013: \bibitem[Ben{\'{\i}}tez et al.(2008)]{pau}
1014: Ben{\'{\i}}tez, N., et al. \ 2008, in preparation.
1015: %\footnote{www.ice.csic.es/research/PAU/PAU-welcome.html}
1016:
1017: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{Sextractor1996}
1018: Bertin, E., \& Arnouts, S. 1996, Astron. and Astrophys. Supp.,
1019: 117:393.
1020:
1021: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)] {BC03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S.\ 2003, \mnras,
1022: 344, 1000.
1023:
1024: \bibitem[Budav{\'a}ri et al.(2005)]{Budavari_photoz_2005}
1025: Budav{\'a}ri, T., et al. \ 2005, \apj Letters, 61:L31.
1026:
1027: \bibitem[Carbone et al.(2007)]{melita}
1028: Carbone, C., Springel, V., Baccigalupi, C., Bartelmann, M., \&
1029: Matarrese, S.\ 2007, ArXiv Astroph. e-prints, astro-ph/07112655.
1030:
1031: \bibitem[Carlstrom et al.(2005)]{SPT_white}
1032: Carlstrom, J., et al. \ 2005, Dark Energy Task Force white paper.
1033:
1034: \bibitem[Coleman, Wu, \& Weedman(1980)]{cww_templates80}
1035: Coleman, G.D., Wu, C.-C., \& Weedman D.W.\ 1980, ApJS, 43, 393.
1036:
1037: \bibitem[Connolly et al.(1997)]{connollylsst}
1038: Connolly, A., et al. \ 1997, \apj, 486:L11.
1039:
1040: \bibitem[Collister \& Lahav(2004)]{collister04}
1041: Collister, A. A., \& Lahav, O. 2004, PASP, 116, 345.
1042:
1043: %\bibitem[Das \& Bode(2007)]{das}
1044: %Das, S., \& Bode, P.\ 2007, ArXiv Astroph. e-prints, astro-ph/07113793
1045:
1046: \bibitem[Feldmann et al.(2006)]{zebra}
1047: Feldmann, R., et al.\ 2006, \mnras, 372, 565.
1048:
1049: \bibitem[Fernandes et al.(2005)]{fernandes2005}
1050: Fernandes, R.~C., Mateus, A., Sodr{\'e}, L., Stasi{\'n}ska, G., \&
1051: Gomes, J.~M.\ 2005, MNRAS, 358, 363.
1052:
1053: \bibitem[Heavens et al.(2004)]{heavens04}
1054: Heavens, A., Panter, B., Jimenez, R., \& Dunlop, J.\ 2004, \nat,
1055: 428, 625.
1056:
1057: \bibitem[Hern{\'a}ndez-Monteagudo et al.(2006)]{carlosksz}
1058: Hern{\'a}ndez-Monteagudo, C., Verde, L., Jimenez, R., \& Spergel,
1059: D.~N.\ 2006, \apj, 643:598.
1060:
1061: \bibitem[Ilbert et al.(2006)]{CFHT_photoz06}
1062: Ilbert, O., et al.\ 2006, ArXiv Astroph. e-prints, astro-ph/0603217.
1063:
1064: \bibitem[Kinney et al.(1996)]{Kin_templates96}
1065: Kinney, A.L., Calzetti, D., Bohlin, R.C., McQuade, K.,
1066: Storchi-Bergmann, T. \& Schmitt, H.R.\ 1996, \apj, 467:38.
1067:
1068: \bibitem[Koo(1985)]{Koo}
1069: Koo, D.~C.\ 1985, \aj, 90:418.
1070:
1071: \bibitem[Koo(1999)]{koo99}
1072: Koo, D. C. 1999, ASP Conf. Ser., 191, 3.
1073:
1074: \bibitem[Lima \& Hu(2007)]{lima-hu07}
1075: Lima, M., \& Hu, W.\ 2007, \prd, 76, 123013.
1076:
1077: %\bibitem[Menanteau et al.(2008)]{BCS_data08}
1078: %Menanteau, F., et al.\ 2008, in preparation.
1079:
1080: \bibitem[Moles et al.(2005)]{alhambra}
1081: Moles, M., et al.\ 2005, ArXiv Astroph. e-prints, astro-ph/0504545.
1082:
1083: \bibitem[Morrisey et al.(2005)]{Morrisey_GALEX_05}
1084: Morrisey, P., et al.\ 2005, \apj Letters, 619:1, L7.
1085:
1086: \bibitem[Niemack(2008)]{Niemack_thesis}
1087: Niemack, M.\ 2008, Ph. D. thesis, Princeton University.
1088:
1089: \bibitem[Oyaizu et al.(2006)]{frieman} Oyaizu, H., Cunha, C.,
1090: Lima, M., Lin, H., \& Frieman, J.\ 2006, Bulletin of the American
1091: Astronomical Society, 38, 140.
1092:
1093: \bibitem[Oyaizu et al.(2007)]{ANNz_SDSS_07} Oyaizu, H., Lima, M.,
1094: Cunha, C.~E., Lin, H., Frieman, J., \& Sheldon, E.~S.\ 2007, ArXiv
1095: e-prints, 708, arXiv:0708.0030.
1096:
1097: %\bibitem[Padmanabhan et al.(2005)]{Padmanabhan_LRG_photoz_2005}
1098: %Padmanabhan, N., et al.\ 2005, MNRAS, 359:237.
1099:
1100: \bibitem[Padmanabhan et al.(2007)]{Padmanabhan_Ubercal_2007}
1101: Padmanabhan, N., et al.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 703,
1102: arXiv:0703.454v2.
1103:
1104: \bibitem[Panter et al.(2007)]{Panter+07} Panter, B., Jimenez, R.,
1105: Heavens, A.~F., \& Charlot, S.\ 2007, \mnras, 378, 1550.
1106:
1107: \bibitem[Sunyaev \& Zeldovich(1972)]{SZ}
1108: Sunyaev, R.~A., \& Zeldovich, Y.~B.\ 1972, Comm. Astroph. \& Space
1109: Phys., 4, 173.
1110:
1111: \bibitem[Vanzella et al.(2004)]{vanzella04}
1112: Vanzella, E., et al. 2004, A\&A, 423, 761.
1113:
1114: \bibitem[Way \& Srivastava (2006)]{Way_photoz_2006}
1115: Way, M. J. \& Srivastava, A. N.\ 2006, \apj, 647:102.
1116:
1117: \bibitem[Wray \& Gunn(2007)]{WrayGunn07} Wray, J.~J., \& Gunn,
1118: J.~E.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 707, arXiv:0707.3443. b
1119:
1120: \end{thebibliography}
1121:
1122:
1123: \end{document}
1124: