1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3:
4: %Own commands not in AASTeX
5: \newcommand{\kms}{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}
6: \newcommand{\kmsp}{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}}
7: \newcommand{\zphot}{z_{\mathrm{phot}}}
8: \newcommand{\zspec}{z_{\mathrm{spec}}}
9: \newcommand{\dz}{\Delta z}
10: \newcommand{\dzopz}{\dz / (1+z)}
11: \newcommand{\dzrange}{\dz < 0.1, 0.2, {\mathrm{and~}} 0.3}
12: \newcommand{\dzdef}{|\zspec - \zphot|}
13: \newcommand{\variance}{\sigma^2}
14: \newcommand{\zvariance}{\sigma_{z}^2}
15: \newcommand{\rtrain}{r_{\mathrm{train}}}
16: \newcommand{\rblind}{r_{\mathrm{blind}}}
17: \newcommand{\rbagging}{r_{\mathrm{bagging}}}
18: \newcommand{\rcrossval}{r_{\mathrm{cross-val}}}
19:
20: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ}
21: \shorttitle{Quasar Photometric Redshifts}
22: \shortauthors{Ball et al.}
23:
24: \begin{document}
25:
26: \title{Robust Machine Learning Applied to Astronomical Datasets II: Quantifying
27: Photometric Redshifts for Quasars Using Instance-Based Learning}
28: \author{Nicholas M. Ball\altaffilmark{1,2}, Robert J. Brunner\altaffilmark{1,2},
29: Adam D. Myers\altaffilmark{1,2}, \\ Natalie E. Strand\altaffilmark{3}, Stacey
30: L. Alberts\altaffilmark{1}, David Tcheng\altaffilmark{2}, Xavier
31: Llor\`a\altaffilmark{2}}
32: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, MC-221, University of Illinois, 1002
33: W. Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA}
34: \altaffiltext{2}{National Center for Supercomputing Applications, MC-257, 1205
35: W. Clark St, Urbana, IL 61801, USA}
36: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, MC-704, University of Illinois, 1110
37: W. Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA}
38: \email{nball@astro.uiuc.edu}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We apply instance-based machine learning in the form of a $k$-nearest neighbor
42: algorithm to the task of estimating photometric redshifts for 55,746 objects
43: spectroscopically classified as quasars in the Fifth Data Release of the Sloan
44: Digital Sky Survey. We compare the results obtained to those from an empirical
45: color-redshift relation (CZR). In contrast to previously published results using
46: CZRs, we find that the instance-based photometric redshifts are assigned with no
47: regions of catastrophic failure. Remaining outliers are simply scattered about
48: the ideal relation, in a similar manner to the pattern seen in the optical for
49: normal galaxies at redshifts $z \lesssim 1$. The instance-based algorithm is
50: trained on a representative sample of the data and pseudo-blind-tested on the
51: remaining unseen data. The variance between the photometric and spectroscopic
52: redshifts is $\variance = 0.123 \pm 0.002$ (compared to $\variance = 0.265 \pm
53: 0.006$ for the CZR), and $54.9 \pm 0.7\%$, $73.3 \pm 0.6\%$, and $80.7 \pm
54: 0.3\%$ of the objects are within $\dzrange$ respectively. We also match our
55: sample to the Second Data Release of the Galaxy Evolution Explorer legacy data
56: and the resulting 7,642 objects show a further improvement, giving a variance of
57: $\variance = 0.054 \pm 0.005$, and $70.8 \pm 1.2\%$, $85.8 \pm 1.0\%$, and $90.8
58: \pm 0.7\%$ of objects within $\dzrange$. We show that the improvement is indeed
59: due to the extra information provided by GALEX, by training on the same dataset
60: using purely SDSS photometry, which has a variance of $\variance = 0.090 \pm
61: 0.007$. Each set of results represents a realistic standard for application to
62: further datasets for which the spectra are representative.
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65: \keywords{methods: data analysis --- catalogs --- quasars: general ---
66: cosmology: miscellaneous}
67:
68:
69: \section{Introduction} \label{Sec: Intro}
70:
71: Photometric redshifts, both from empirical training sets and template SEDs, are
72: important for the application of objects to the study of cosmology, as they
73: enable the exploration of large regions of space that are otherwise
74: inaccessible. This is achieved both in cosmological volume through a higher
75: number density of objects and in parameter space through finer binning.
76:
77: After the early work of \citet{baum:photoz}, \citet{koo:photoz}, and
78: \citet{loh:photoz}, a variety of techniques were developed extensively
79: \citep{gwyn:photoz, lanzetta:photoz, mobasher:photoz, sawicki:photoz,
80: connolly:angcf, wang:photoz, benitez:photoz} on galaxies in the deep, but
81: narrow, Hubble Deep Field North, \citep[HDF-N;][]{williams:hdfn}. These
82: different methods were shown to be mutually consistent and relatively accurate
83: in blind-testing \citep{hogg:photoz}.
84:
85: More recently, wide-field surveys with multicolor photometry and fiber-based
86: spectroscopy have generated large, uniform samples that enable photometric
87: redshifts to be estimated for both galaxies and quasars.
88:
89: For galaxies in these surveys at redshifts of $z \lesssim 0.4$,
90: \citep[e.g.,][]{brunner:photoz, brunner:angcf, tagliaferri:nnphotoz,
91: firth:annphotoz, vanzella:hdfannphotoz, ball:ann, collister:annz,
92: wadadekar:photoz} a number of results have converged to an RMS dispersion of
93: $\sigma \sim 0.02$ (i.e., $\variance \sim 0.0004$) between spectroscopic and
94: photometric redshifts, with no serious systematic effects. It should be
95: emphasized, however, that galaxy photometry in these previous analyses has been
96: very good, typically a few percent or better. \citet{way:photoz} show similar
97: results when combining the SDSS DR2 \citep{abazajian:dr2}, GALEX GR1
98: \citep{martin:galex} and the extended source catalog of the 2 Micron All Sky
99: Survey \citep{skrutskie:2mass}.
100:
101: The results at moderate redshifts have also been successful, with luminous red
102: galaxies \citep{eisenstein:lrgsample} in the SDSS trained with redshifts in the
103: 2SLAQ survey \citep{cannon:2slaqlrg} having an RMS of $\sigma = 0.049$
104: \citep{collister:megazlrg} for a sample at $0.4 < z < 0.7$ \citep[see
105: also][]{padmanabhan:photoz}.
106:
107: At high redshifts, the number of spectra available is smaller and, in addition
108: to the HDF-N, there have been analyses of other deep fields such as the
109: HDF-South \citep{williams:hdfs} and the Hubble Ultra Deep Field
110: \citep{beckwith:hudf}. In the latter, \citet{coe:photoz} show an accuracy of
111: $\dz = 0.04(1+z)$ for $z \lesssim 6$.
112:
113: In contrast to galaxies, which show small numbers of outliers but no significant
114: groups of outlying objects, all wide-field quasar photometric redshift results
115: to date \citep{richards:qsophotoz, budavari:qsophotoz, weinstein:sdssqsophotoz,
116: wu:qsophotoz, babbedge:impz} suffer from regions of `catastrophic' failure, in
117: which groups of objects are assigned a redshift very different from the true
118: value. The first four use SDSS data, while the latter uses the ELAIS N1 and N2
119: fields and the Chandra Deep Field North. \citet[][hereafter
120: W04]{weinstein:sdssqsophotoz} implement an empirical method based on
121: color-redshift relations, which we use as our baseline. Catastrophic failures
122: severely hamper cosmological investigations that use photometrically selected
123: quasar samples
124: \citep[e.g.,][]{myers:qsoevoln,myers:nbckdeall,myers:nbckdesmall}, particularly
125: by assigning objects at $z > 2$ to $z < 1$ and vice-versa, thus eliminating
126: these regions is important. Reasons for the failures, depending on the details
127: of the way a particular dataset is chosen, include quasar reddening, degeneracy
128: in the color-redshift relation, and superimposition of emission from another
129: object, for example, an extended host galaxy.
130:
131: Results using a more restricted parameter space \citep{wolf:qsophotoz}, defined
132: by $17 < R < 24$ and $1.2 < z < 4.8$ in the 17 filter set of the COMBO-17 survey
133: \citep[e.g.,][]{wolf:combo17}, have met with more success. However the sample
134: size, 192 quasars, is small, and limited in angular extent, and therefore is of
135: limited cosmological applicability.
136:
137: In this paper we utilize optical data from the Fifth Data Release of the SDSS,
138: and near- and far-UV data from the Second Data Release of the Galaxy Evolution
139: Explorer \citep[GALEX;][]{martin:galex} to assign photometric redshifts to
140: quasars. Our results improve upon previous wide-field techniques, by eliminating
141: regions of catastrophic failure, resulting in a distribution of quasar
142: photometric redshifts comparable to those obtained for galaxies. We do not
143: address the application of the photometric redshifts to any parameter space
144: beyond that represented by the training and blind test sets.
145:
146:
147: \section{Data} \label{Sec: Data}
148:
149: We utilize data from the Fifth Data Release (DR5, SDSS collaboration, in
150: preparation) of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep[SDSS,][]{york:sdss} and the
151: Second Data Release (GR2) of the Galaxy Evolution Explorer
152: \citep{martin:galex}. We select primary non-repeat observations of objects
153: classified as quasars ({\tt specClass} = {\tt qso} or {\tt hiz\_qso}) in the
154: {\tt specObj} view of the SDSS DR5 Catalog Archive Server database. The {\tt
155: hiz\_qso} objects are at redshifts of $z > 2.3$ and trigger the use of the
156: Lyman $\alpha$ finding code in the SDSS spectroscopic pipelines (Frieman et al.,
157: Schlegel et al., in preparation). We also require that the spectroscopic flags
158: {\tt zWarning} = 0 and {\tt zStatus} $>$ 2, and that all input magnitudes are
159: not at clearly unphysical extreme values, being in the range 0--40. The
160: resulting sample contains 55,746 quasars.
161:
162: In addition to the SDSS sample, the SDSS objects are cross-matched to the
163: primary photometric objects in the {\tt photoObjAll} view of the GALEX GR2
164: database. We find 8,174 matches within an RA+DEC tolerance of 4 arcsec. 532 of
165: these have more than one match and are rejected, leaving an SDSS+GALEX sample of
166: 7,642 unique matches. For the GALEX objects, we require {\tt primary\_flag} = 1,
167: a detection in both near and far-UV bands, magnitudes again in the range 0--40,
168: and the flags {\tt fuv\_artifact} and {\tt nuv\_artifact} to be 0.
169:
170: Throughout, the SDSS magnitudes are corrected for Galactic extinction using the
171: dust maps of \citet{schlegel:dustmaps} and the GALEX magnitudes using the $B-V$
172: ({\tt e\_bv}) term inferred from these maps using the standard formula of
173: \citet{cardelli:extinction}.
174:
175: The resulting samples of 55,746 and 7,642 objects form training sets used as
176: input for the learning algorithms. The full set of object attributes for the
177: SDSS sample consists of 16 training features. These are the colors $u-g$, $g-r$,
178: $r-i$, and $i-z$, where the SDSS bands $u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$ are given for
179: each of the four magnitude types PSF, fiber, Petrosian, and model
180: \citep{stoughton:edr}. For SDSS+GALEX, we add the colors $fuv-nuv$ and $nuv-u$,
181: where $u$ is given in each of the four SDSS magnitude types, resulting in 21
182: training features.
183:
184: In addition to the SDSS and SDSS+GALEX datasets, we also analyze the SDSS+GALEX
185: sample of objects, but using only SDSS features. This dataset, referred to as
186: {\it GALEX-SDSS-only}, enables us to quantify the level of improvement in
187: SDSS+GALEX seen from the addition of the GALEX UV features, as opposed to
188: possible improvement due to the sample only containing quasars that appear in
189: both SDSS and GALEX.
190:
191:
192: \section{Algorithms} \label{Sec: Algorithms}
193:
194: We implement instance-based learning on the SDSS, SDSS+GALEX and GALEX-SDSS-only
195: datasets. The results are compared to those on the same data for an empirical
196: color-redshift relation containing full probability density functions (Strand,
197: in preparation). We also study the utility of subsets of the full set of
198: training features using genetic algorithms.
199:
200: The machine learning is implemented in the Java environment Data-to-Knowledge
201: \citep{welge:d2k}. It is optimized through use of nationally peer-reviewed
202: allocated time on the Xeon Linux cluster Tungsten at the National Center for
203: Supercomputing Applications. This enables an extensive exploration of the
204: parameter space describing the training features of the objects and the settings
205: of the learning algorithms.
206:
207:
208: \subsection{Instance-based Learning} \label{Subsec: IB}
209:
210: Instance-based learning \citep[IB,
211: e.g.][]{aha:ib,witten:datamining,hastie:learning}, is a powerful class of
212: empirical machine learning methods that to date has not been extensively
213: utilized on large astronomical datasets due to its computational intensity.
214: Two examples where the method has been used are \citet{budavari:qsophotoz} and
215: \citet{csabai:edrphotoz}, who both use the method on the SDSS Early Data Release
216: \citep[EDR][]{stoughton:edr}. However, they only utilize single nearest neighbors,
217: and in addition the DR5 dataset analyzed herein is approximately 15 times the
218: size of the EDR. Here, through the use of Tungsten (\S \ref{Sec: Algorithms},
219: above), we are able to realize the full potential of the algorithm, via the use
220: of the $k$-nearest neighbor method \citep[e.g.,][]{cover:nn}.
221:
222: In its simplest form, the `training' of the algorithm is trivial, and involves
223: simply memorizing the positions of each of the examples in the training set. For
224: each object in the testing set, the nearest training example is then found, and
225: the predicted value, either a classification or a continuous value, is taken to
226: be that of the training example. Thus the computational expense is incurred at
227: the time of classification, as a large number of distance calculations must be
228: performed. However, the method is powerful because it uses all of the
229: information available in the training set, rather than a model of the training
230: set as is typically used by most other learning algorithms.
231:
232: There are a number of simple refinements to this method, which in practice
233: result in large improvements in performance: (1) Instead of the nearest neighbor
234: to the testing example, the $k$ nearest neighbors can be found, and the
235: distances weighted using a predictive integration function to produce a weighted
236: output. This function, $d$, takes the form $$d = \sum_{i}^{k} \frac{1}{x_i^p},$$
237: where the $x_i$ are the Euclidean distances to the neighbors, and the exponent
238: $p$ can take on any positive value, typically but not necessarily an integer. (2)
239: The input features can be {\it standardized} such that the mean and variance of
240: each are 0 and 1 respectively. This stops the training being dominated by
241: features with larger numerical values or spreads. Alternatively, one could also
242: normalize the range of features to be 0--1. (3) Objects in the training set can
243: be allocated to collective regions of parameter space, which can considerably
244: reduce the required number of distance calculations.
245:
246: Of the methods described, we implement (1) and (2), but not (3) as we wish to use
247: the full information available in the training data. We optimize the values of
248: $k$ and $p$ and standardize all training features. Further refinements can also
249: be made for objects which have non-continuous values such as a classification or
250: missing data. However, in this paper all values are considered, i.e., the
251: training features and the spectroscopic and photometric redshifts, are
252: continuous.
253:
254:
255: \subsection{Color-Redshift Relation} \label{Subsec: CZR}
256:
257: We have implemented the color-redshift relation (CZR) method of
258: \citet{weinstein:sdssqsophotoz} on the same data as the IB. This enables a
259: direct comparison of the performance of the two methods. The CZR establishes an
260: empirical relation between the spectroscopic redshifts and the colors of the
261: training set. The maximum likelihood redshift Probability Density Function (PDF)
262: is then found for each object in the test set.
263:
264:
265: \subsection{Genetic Algorithms} \label{Subsec: GA}
266:
267: The methods above select and optimize a learning algorithm for a given set of
268: training features. However, it is possible that different subsets of the
269: features available will produce better results. In particular, the results for
270: instance-based learning can be made worse by noise in the training set or by
271: irrelevant training features. To explore this possibility, we implement a binary
272: genetic algorithm on the training feature sets.
273:
274: A genetic algorithm \citep[GA:
275: e.g.,][]{holland:genetic,goldberg:genetic,haupt:genetic} mimics evolution, in
276: the sense that the most successful individuals are those that are best adapted
277: for the task at hand. We implement the binary genetic algorithm, in which each
278: individual is a string of 0s and 1s which represents whether or not to use a
279: particular input feature (in our case the 16 colors). An initial population of
280: random individuals is created and the IB is run using the features selected. The
281: result, in this case the variance between photometric and spectroscopic
282: redshift, is the {\it fitness} of that individual. The individuals and their
283: fitnesses are then combined to produce new individuals, and those with higher
284: fitnesses are favored. In principle, a good approximation to the best set of
285: features to use as the training set should be selected with this approach.
286:
287: The combination involves identifying the best individuals to breed via
288: tournament selection, in which a specified number of individuals from the
289: population are selected and the best is put in the mating pool to be combined
290: with other individuals. Two individuals are combined using one point
291: crossover, in which a segment of one is swapped with that of the other. To more
292: fully explore the parameter space and prevent the algorithm from converging too
293: rapidly on a local minimum, a probability of mutation is introduced on the newly
294: created individuals before they are processed. This is simply the probability that
295: a 0 becomes a 1, or vice-versa.
296:
297: An approximate number of individuals to use is given by $$n_{in} \sim
298: 2n_f~log(n_f),$$ where $n_f$ is the number of features. Here, for the SDSS and
299: GALEX-SDSS-only, $n_f=16$, and for SDSS+GALEX, $n_f=21$. Hence, $n_{in} \sim 39,
300: 56$ respectively for these two values of $n_f$. The algorithm converges,
301: i.e., finds the best individual and hence the best training set, in $$n_{it} \sim
302: \alpha n_f~log(n_f)$$ iterations, where $\alpha$ is a problem-dependent
303: constant. Generally $\alpha > 3$, giving an expected value for our data of
304: $n_{it} \sim 58$ for $n_f=16$, and $n_{it} \sim 83$ for $n_f=21$. We employ this
305: number of iterations with larger numbers of individuals\footnote{300 for
306: SDSS+GALEX, and 200 for the other two datasets. These numbers were selected for
307: other tests not reported here, and simply strengthen the null result.} to be sure
308: that the algorithm has converged. Further information on genetic algorithm design
309: can be found in, e.g., \citet{goldberg:design}.
310:
311: Our GA is implemented on the IB for each of the SDSS, SDSS+GALEX and
312: GALEX-SDSS-only datasets. The settings of these algorithms are fixed for the
313: duration of the GA iteration. It is possible in principle to combine the
314: optimization of the learning algorithm and the feature set; however, we defer
315: this analysis to a later paper.
316:
317:
318: \subsection{Training and Quality of Redshifts} \label{Subsec: Training}
319:
320: The IB and CZR are supervised learning algorithms---they are given a training
321: set of objects and attempt to minimize a cost function which describes the
322: quality of the predictions on a separate testing set.
323:
324: For IB, the cost function is given by the variance between the photometric and
325: spectroscopic redshifts for objects with spectra: $$\left<(\dz)^2\right> -
326: \left<\dz\right>^2,$$ where $\dz = \dzdef$, $\zspec$ is the spectroscopic
327: redshift value, and $\zphot$ is the photometric redshift prediction made by the
328: learning algorithm. The second term in the variance equation is small.
329:
330: The value of the variance is dominated by the outliers. However,
331: in our case, this is a desirable property, because it is these objects which we
332: wish to pull in the most toward the correct values. The dominance of the
333: outliers renders the variance susceptible to variations in this population. We
334: therefore quote errors on all of our blind test variances, derived from
335: splitting the population using multiple random seeds (see below). For the CZR,
336: the cost function is the likelihood of the PDF.
337:
338: Instance-based learning, like any supervised machine learning algorithm, is
339: susceptible to incompleteness and noise in the training set. At the present
340: time, the SDSS DR5 is by far the largest and most homogeneous quasar dataset
341: available, and it has a high completeness \citep[e.g.,][]{vandenberk:empirical}.
342: Other available datasets are either not as deep, smaller
343: \citep[e.g.,][]{croom:qsolf}, or deeper but orders of magnitude smaller
344: \citep[e.g.,][]{wolf:combo17}. One could prune noisy exemplars, however, it is
345: difficult to meaningfully define what is a noisy or sparsely populated region of
346: parameter space, and pruning particular regions could introduce new and poorly
347: defined biases. The use of multiple nearest neighbors smoothes the noise, and
348: the blind test results address both incompleteness and noise by presenting
349: realistic results on unseen data.
350:
351: The distance measure parameters of a number of nearest neighbors and the
352: distance weighting assume that the input training features are uncorrelated,
353: however, given that we repeat the same four colors in four magnitude types, and
354: in addition that a set of features is always derived from a particular object,
355: the input features will always be correlated, both in magnitude type (e.g., PSF
356: $u-g$ is correlated to fiber $u-g$, and so on), and in color (e.g., PSF $u-g$ is
357: correlated to PSF $g-r$, and so on.) Correlated input features are therefore
358: unavoidable; we feel, however, that our algorithmic approach is acceptable
359: because we select the parameters to produce the optimal blind test result.
360:
361: Different splits of the training set are investigated at various points in the
362: learning process, giving four adjustable ratios: (1) $\rtrain$ is the ratio
363: between the data used as the training set and for testing the algorithm's
364: performance according to the cost function to adjust the final model settings
365: (for IB there is no adjustment so the ratio just affects the performance through
366: the information available). (2) $\rblind$ is the ratio of the whole set of data
367: used in training and testing to that unseen by the algorithm until it is
368: applied, as it would be to new data from another survey; this is the
369: pseudo-blind test. (3) $\rbagging$ is the ratio of the data used in each bagged
370: model to the rest of the training data, where the training data is $\rtrain$ of
371: the whole dataset. (4) $\rcrossval$ is similar, but for cross-validation. The
372: latter is distinguished from bagging because it takes different random
373: subsamples of the whole $\rtrain$ training and $1-\rtrain$ testing set, whereas
374: bagging subsamples $\rtrain$.
375:
376: The value for which we quote results for all of these ratios is 80:20. For
377: application to new data not used here, the value of $\rtrain$ would be 100\%,
378: to maximize the information available. This is the standard $\sigma^2$ reported
379: in the literature for CZR techniques, but its value would be meaningless for
380: instance-based approaches.
381:
382: For IB, the variances obtained are quoted from the pseudo-blind test, as this
383: represents the most realistic standard of performance available from within the
384: SDSS and GALEX datasets to be expected on new data. $\rblind$ is always such
385: that the training data is representative of the full dataset.
386:
387: We quote the mean and standard deviation of the best variance from ten training
388: runs with differing random seeds for $\rblind$. Each run produces a grid of
389: models with the range $1 \leq k \leq 50$ and $1 \leq p \leq 10$, where $k$ is
390: the number of nearest neighbors and $p$ the exponent in the distance-weighting
391: function (\S \ref{Subsec: IB}). Integral values of $k$ and $p$ were used,
392: although this is not a requirement. We use positive values of $p$ as negative
393: values would result in objects other than the nearest neighbor being given the
394: highest weighting, which would be unphysical as increasingly large values of $k$
395: would be given an ever higher weight. We investigated bagging and cross-validation
396: using values of $\rbagging$ and $\rcrossval$ of 80:20 and 50:50 but these were
397: not found to be necessary for IB. Other measures, such as $\dzopz$, and the
398: percentage of objects within $\dzrange$ are also given for comparison to other
399: work. We do not quote any results in which there is any overlap between the
400: training and testing data.
401:
402: The comparative CZR results were obtained by using a 10-fold bootstrapped
403: pseudo-blind test, again in the ratio $\rblind$ = 80:20.
404:
405:
406: \section{Results} \label{Sec: Results}
407:
408: We now describe results for the full SDSS DR5, SDSS DR5 + GALEX GR2, and
409: GALEX-SDSS-only datasets, all of which are summarized in Table \ref{Table:
410: photoz}.
411:
412:
413: \subsection{SDSS DR5}
414:
415: We found that the ideal parameters are $22 \pm 5$ nearest neighbors (NN) and a
416: distance weighting (DW) of $3.7 \pm 0.5$. In the pseudo-blind test on the unseen
417: 20\% of the data, the best variance between the photometric and spectroscopic
418: redshifts is $0.123 \pm 0.002$. A comparison between the photometric and
419: spectroscopic redshifts is shown in Figure \ref{Fig: SDSS photoz}, and the
420: effect of varying the NN and the DW for the pseudo-blind test is shown in Figure
421: \ref{Fig: SDSS grid}. We find that $54.9 \pm 0.7\%$, $73.3 \pm 0.6\%$, and $80.7
422: \pm 0.3\%$ of the objects are within $\dzrange$, respectively. The variance
423: weighted by redshift is $\zvariance = 0.034 \pm 0.001$ and the mean $\dzopz =
424: 0.095 \pm 0.001$.
425:
426: Because the values of NN and DW used here are discrete (in principle they can be
427: continuous, but that was not attempted), the results presented in Figure
428: \ref{Fig: SDSS photoz} were obtained with the values of NN, DW and the blind
429: test set random seed that gave the best variance in its grid that was closest to
430: the mean. Here, these values are ${\mathrm{NN}}=22$, ${\mathrm{DW}}=4$ and a
431: random seed of 8 (for the seeds we used the integers 0 to 9). The variance is
432: 0.1240, which is consistent with the mean variance quoted.
433:
434: Our key result, shown in Figure \ref{Fig: SDSS photoz} is the absence of regions
435: of catastrophic failure---there is no upturn in a histogram of $\dz$ values at
436: large $\dz$, just a smooth decline such that few objects are outliers. This is
437: in contrast to previous results for quasar photometric redshifts, which, while
438: showing a comparable spread of objects with low $\dz$, show outlying regions of
439: objects with high $\dz$. The scattering of outliers obtained by the IB is
440: similar in form to that seen in other studies for normal galaxies at redshifts
441: of $z \lesssim 1$ (see, for example, Figure 3 of \citealt{ball:ann} for SDSS
442: Main Sample galaxies, which have a mean redshift of $z \sim 0.1$), although
443: there is still structure seen in Figure \ref{Fig: SDSS photoz}, especially at
444: $\zspec \lesssim 1, {\mathrm{and~}} \zspec \sim 2.2$.
445:
446: We have also implemented the methods of W04 on the SDSS DR3, without removing
447: the reddened quasars (Strand, in preparation). Here we apply that method to the
448: SDSS DR5 dataset as a direct comparison between the empirical CZR and the IB. We
449: find that the CZR has slightly narrower dispersion than the IB, with $\dz$
450: percentages of $63.9 \pm 0.3\%$, $80.2 \pm 0.4\%$ and $85.7 \pm 0.3\%$ within
451: $\dzrange$. However, as shown in Figure \ref{Fig: CZR photoz}, it still shows
452: regions of catastrophic failure. The variance is therefore significantly higher,
453: at $\variance = 0.265 \pm 0.006$. We again plot the run from the ten with the
454: closest variance to the mean. In this case this was the final run of the ten,
455: with $\variance = 0.2653$.
456:
457: Previous results using empirical CZRs show a similar pattern. For example,
458: Figure 4 of W04 shows regions of quasars at $0 \lesssim \zphot \lesssim 1$ and
459: $1.5 \lesssim \zphot \lesssim 4.5$ over the spectroscopic redshift range $0
460: \lesssim \zspec \lesssim 4$. Similar results are seen in
461: \citet{budavari:qsophotoz}, \citet{richards:qsophotoz}, and
462: \citet{wu:qsophotoz}.
463:
464:
465: \subsection{SDSS DR5 + GALEX GR2}
466:
467: Adding the GALEX data significantly improves the results, as shown in Figures
468: \ref{Fig: GALEX photoz} and \ref{Fig: GALEX grid}. Here we obtain a variance of
469: $0.054 \pm 0.005$ for the pseudo-blind test, $70.8 \pm 1.2\%$, $85.8 \pm 1.0\%$
470: and $90.8 \pm 0.7\%$ of objects within $\dzrange$, $\zvariance = 0.014 \pm
471: 0.002$, and the mean $\dzopz = 0.060 \pm 0.003$.
472:
473: The number of nearest neighbors and distance weighting are $17 \pm 5$ and $4.4
474: \pm 0.8$ respectively. A higher distance weighting is expected due to the
475: greater dimensionality of the training feature space (21 colors instead of 16)
476: compared to the SDSS dataset.
477:
478: The exact values of NN and DW that are plotted in Figure \ref{Fig: GALEX photoz}
479: are chosen in the same manner as for the SDSS, and are ${\mathrm{NN}} = 12$,
480: ${\mathrm{DW}} = 5$ and a random seed of 3. The variance is 0.0521.
481:
482: To show that the improvement is not simply due to the smaller set of objects
483: which appear in both surveys (for example, these objects may be brighter quasars
484: in the SDSS with better photometry), we also applied the SDSS training procedure
485: to the cross-matched sample. This gives better results than the SDSS sample, but
486: they are still significantly worse than SDSS+GALEX. The variance is $\variance =
487: 0.090 \pm 0.007$, and the other results are as seen in Table \ref{Table:
488: photoz}.
489:
490: The SDSS results extend deeper than those matched with GALEX, to $z \lesssim 6$
491: rather than $z \lesssim 3.5$. The lack of quasars in the `redshift desert' at $z
492: \gtrsim 2.2$ is seen in Figure \ref{Fig: GALEX photoz}, caused by the Lyman
493: break in the spectrum at a restframe wavelength of $912~{\mathrm{\AA}}$ being
494: shifted out of the UV.
495:
496: The CZR results for SDSS+GALEX also improve over those from the full SDSS
497: dataset. $74.9 \pm 1.4\%$, $86.9 \pm 0.6\%$, and $91.0 \pm 0.8\%$ of the objects
498: are within $\dzrange$. This is still slightly better than IB for $\dz < 0.1$ and
499: $\dz < 0.2$, but is the same for $\dz < 0.3$.
500:
501:
502: \subsection{Genetic Algorithms} \label{Subsec: GA Results}
503:
504: The application of the genetic algorithms on the SDSS, SDSS+GALEX and
505: GALEX-SDSS-only datasets converged on the use of approximately half of the
506: training parameters, but the variance was not significantly different from that
507: from using the full set of training features. The full sets were therefore used
508: throughout. The result indicates that there is some redundancy in the training
509: features, which is expected given that they are measuring the four colors four
510: different times, just through different apertures.
511:
512:
513: \section{Discussion} \label{Sec: Discussion}
514:
515: Although the results here represent an important step in the sense that there
516: are no regions of catastrophic failure, further improvement is still
517: possible. In particular: (1) The input object parameter distributions may be
518: generalized into the form of a PDF for each object, which can be propagated
519: through the learning process, to make more explicit those objects for which the
520: redshift is less certain, to take into account the error on each parameter, and
521: to output a PDF for each object instead of a scalar value. (2) The
522: no-catastrophics of the instance-based and the lower low-$\dz$ dispersion of the
523: CZR can be combined into a new learning algorithm. The IB is in fact able to
524: obtain similar results to the CZR (i.e., an approximately 5\% narrower
525: dispersion and regions of catastrophic failure instead of a spread of objects),
526: by using the single nearest neighbor instead of $k$ nearest neighbors. (3) The
527: addition of other multiwavelength training data, such as infrared data from
528: UKIDSS \citep{lawrence:ukidss} and Spitzer \citep{werner:spitzer}, can be
529: included in the training process.
530:
531: We also obtained quasar photometric redshifts using decision trees, as used in
532: \citet{ball:dtclassification} for star-galaxy separation. The variances obtained
533: were generally comparable to, but slightly worse than, those for instance-based,
534: and are, therefore, not reported here.
535:
536:
537: \section{Conclusions} \label{Sec: Conclusions}
538:
539: We apply instance-based machine learning to 55,746 objects spectroscopically
540: classified as quasars in the Fifth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
541: (SDSS), and to 7,642 objects cross-matched from this sample to the Second Data
542: Release of the Galaxy Evolution Explorer legacy data (SDSS+GALEX).
543:
544: The algorithm is able to assign photometric redshifts to quasars without regions
545: of catastrophic failure, unlike previously published results. This will enable
546: samples of quasars to be constructed for cosmological studies with minimal
547: contamination from objects at severely incorrect redshifts.
548:
549: We obtain, for the same data, empirical color-redshift relations with full
550: probability distributions and find that these are similar to previous results in
551: the literature.
552:
553: For SDSS, we find a photometric-to-spectroscopic variance of $0.123 \pm 0.002$
554: for a sample of the data not used in the training. For SDSS+GALEX, this improves
555: to $0.054 \pm 0.005$. Using purely SDSS on the latter dataset (GALEX-SDSS-only),
556: the variance is $0.090 \pm 0.007$. Hence the improvement results from the extra
557: UV information provided by GALEX and not the reduced sample size, better
558: photometry, or lower redshifts. The percentages of objects within $\dz < 0.1$
559: are $54.9 \pm 0.7\%$, $70.8 \pm 1.2\%$, and $62.0 \pm 1.4\%$ for SDSS,
560: SDSS+GALEX, and GALEX-SDSS-only, respectively.
561:
562: Each set of results represents a realistic standard for application to further
563: datasets of which the spectra are representative.
564:
565:
566: \begin{figure}
567: \figurenum{1}
568: \plotone{f1.eps}
569: \caption{Contour plot of quasar photometric redshifts assigned by the
570: instance-based learner versus spectroscopic redshifts for the SDSS DR5
571: pseudo-blind testing sample of 11,149 of 55,746 quasars described in the
572: text. For contouring, the objects are placed in bins of 0.05 in redshift,
573: although the values on both axes are continuous. The variance between the two
574: measures over the whole redshift range is $0.123 \pm 0.002$. Compared to
575: Figure \ref{Fig: CZR photoz}, there are no regions of `catastrophic' failure,
576: in which objects are assigned a very different redshift to the true value,
577: just a smoothly declining spread of outliers. There are no objects outside the
578: range of redshifts plotted. \label{Fig: SDSS photoz}}
579: \end{figure}
580:
581: \begin{figure}
582: \figurenum{2}
583: \plotone{f2.eps}
584: \caption{Effect of varying the number of nearest neighbors and the distance
585: weighting of the instance-based learner for the pseudo-blind test on the SDSS
586: DR5 dataset, showing the mean from ten different training to pseudo-blind test
587: splits of the data with a varying random seed. The model which gives the lowest
588: variance is marked with $1\sigma$ error bars. \label{Fig: SDSS grid}}
589: \end{figure}
590:
591: \begin{figure}
592: \figurenum{3}
593: \plotone{f3.eps}
594: \caption{As Figure \ref{Fig: SDSS photoz}, but showing the results for the CZR
595: photozs. The regions of catastrophic failure are seen, and the overall
596: variance is $\variance = 0.265 \pm 0.006$. The values of $\zphot$ resulting
597: from this method are in bins of width 0.05. Here, a uniformly distributed
598: random offset up to $\pm 0.025$ has been added to the values of $\zphot$ for
599: clarity.
600: \label{Fig: CZR photoz}}
601: \end{figure}
602:
603: \begin{figure}
604: \figurenum{4}
605: \plotone{f4.eps}
606: \caption{As Figure \ref{Fig: SDSS photoz}, but showing the results for 1,528 of
607: 7,642 quasars present in the SDSS DR5 cross-matched to the GALEX GR2. The
608: variance is improved to $\variance = 0.054 \pm 0.005$. \label{Fig: GALEX
609: photoz}}
610: \end{figure}
611:
612: \begin{figure}
613: \figurenum{5}
614: \plotone{f5.eps}
615: \caption{As Figure \ref{Fig: SDSS grid}, but for the SDSS+GALEX dataset shown in
616: Figure \ref{Fig: GALEX photoz}. \label{Fig: GALEX grid}}
617: \end{figure}
618:
619:
620: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccc}
621: %\begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
622: %\rotate
623: \tablenum{1}
624: \tablewidth{0pt}
625: \tablecaption{Summary of photometric redshift samples described in this
626: paper. \label{Table: photoz}}
627: \tablehead{\colhead{Dataset} &\colhead{Method} &\colhead{Variance} &\colhead
628: {Variance/(1+z)} &\colhead{Mean $\dzopz$} &\colhead{$\% \dz < 0.1$}
629: &\colhead{$\% \dz < 0.2$} &\colhead{$\% \dz < 0.3$}}
630: \startdata
631: SDSS &IB &$0.123 \pm 0.002$ &$0.034 \pm 0.001$ &$0.095 \pm 0.001$
632: &$54.9 \pm 0.7$ &$73.3 \pm 0.6$ &$80.7 \pm 0.3$\\
633: SDSS+GALEX &IB &$0.054 \pm 0.005$ &$0.014 \pm 0.002$ &$0.060 \pm 0.003$
634: &$70.8 \pm 1.2$ &$85.8 \pm 1.0$ &$90.8 \pm 0.7$\\
635: GALEX-SDSS-only &IB &$0.090 \pm 0.007$ &$0.022 \pm 0.001$ &$0.081 \pm 0.003$
636: &$62.0 \pm 1.4$ &$78.9 \pm 1.0$ &$85.2 \pm 1.2$\\
637:
638: SDSS &CZR &$0.265 \pm 0.006$ &$0.079 \pm 0.003$ &$0.115 \pm 0.002$
639: &$63.9 \pm 0.3$ &$80.2 \pm 0.4$ &$85.7 \pm 0.3$\\
640: SDSS+GALEX &CZR &$0.136 \pm 0.015$ &$0.031 \pm 0.006$ &$0.071 \pm 0.005$
641: &$74.9 \pm 1.4$ &$86.9 \pm 0.6$ &$91.0 \pm 0.8$\\
642: GALEX-SDSS-only &CZR &$0.158 \pm 0.013$ &$0.041 \pm 0.004$ &$0.081 \pm 0.004$
643: &$74.1 \pm 0.8$ &$86.2 \pm 0.7$ &$89.7 \pm 0.6$\\
644: \enddata
645: %\end{deluxetable}
646: \end{deluxetable*}
647:
648:
649: \acknowledgments
650:
651: We thank the referee for a prompt and useful report which improved the paper,
652: and Kumara Sastry of the Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory for a
653: clarification on our use of specific genetic algorithms.
654:
655: The authors acknowledge support from NASA through grants NN6066H156 and
656: 05-GALEX05-0036, from Microsoft Research, and from the University of
657: Illinois. The authors made extensive use of the storage and computing facilities
658: at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications and thank the technical
659: staff for their assistance in enabling this work.
660:
661: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan
662: Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the
663: U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
664: the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education
665: Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
666:
667: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
668: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American
669: Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel,
670: Cambridge University, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago,
671: Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan
672: Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear
673: Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the
674: Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
675: National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPA), the
676: Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPIA), New Mexico State University, Ohio
677: State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton
678: University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of
679: Washington. %Dec 19th 2005
680:
681: %The Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) is a NASA Small Explorer. The mission was
682: %developed in cooperation with the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales of France
683: %and the Korean Ministry of Science and Technology. %NYU VAGC, Jul 15th 2006
684:
685: Based on observations made with the NASA Galaxy Evolution Explorer. GALEX is
686: operated for NASA by the California Institute of Technology under NASA contract
687: NAS5-98034. %GALEX Cycle 2 award letter, Sep 30th 2005
688:
689: Data To Knowledge (D2K) software, D2K modules, and/or D2K itineraries, used by
690: us, were developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA)
691: at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
692:
693: This research has made use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System.
694:
695: %\bibliographystyle{/Users/nball/latex/astronat/apj/apj.bst}
696: %\bibliography{/Users/nball/Documents/latex/refs/refs}
697:
698: \begin{thebibliography}{60}
699: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
700:
701: \bibitem[{{Abazajian} {et~al.}(2004)}]{abazajian:dr2}
702: {Abazajian}, K. {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 128, 502
703:
704: \bibitem[{{Aha} {et~al.}(1991){Aha}, Kibler, \& Albert}]{aha:ib}
705: {Aha}, D.~W., Kibler, D., \& Albert, M.~K. 1991, Machine Learning, 6, 37
706:
707: \bibitem[{{Babbedge} {et~al.}(2004)}]{babbedge:impz}
708: {Babbedge}, T.~S.~R. {et~al.} 2004, \mnras, 353, 279
709:
710: \bibitem[{{Ball} {et~al.}(2006){Ball}, {Brunner}, {Myers}, \&
711: {Tcheng}}]{ball:dtclassification}
712: {Ball}, N.~M., {Brunner}, R.~J., {Myers}, A.~D., \& {Tcheng}, D. 2006, \apj,
713: 650, 497
714:
715: \bibitem[{{Ball} {et~al.}(2004){Ball}, {Loveday}, {Fukugita}, {Nakamura},
716: {Okamura}, {Brinkmann}, \& {Brunner}}]{ball:ann}
717: {Ball}, N.~M., {Loveday}, J., {Fukugita}, M., {Nakamura}, O., {Okamura}, S.,
718: {Brinkmann}, J., \& {Brunner}, R.~J. 2004, \mnras, 348, 1038
719:
720: \bibitem[{{Baum}(1962)}]{baum:photoz}
721: {Baum}, W.~A. 1962, in IAU Symp. 15: Problems of Extra-Galactic Research, 390
722:
723: \bibitem[{{Beckwith} {et~al.}(2006)}]{beckwith:hudf}
724: {Beckwith}, S.~V.~W. {et~al.} 2006, \aj, 132, 1729
725:
726: \bibitem[{{Ben{\'{\i}}tez}(2000)}]{benitez:photoz}
727: {Ben{\'{\i}}tez}, N. 2000, \apj, 536, 571
728:
729: \bibitem[{{Brunner} {et~al.}(1997){Brunner}, {Connolly}, {Szalay}, \&
730: {Bershady}}]{brunner:photoz}
731: {Brunner}, R.~J., {Connolly}, A.~J., {Szalay}, A.~S., \& {Bershady}, M.~A.
732: 1997, \apjl, 482, L21
733:
734: \bibitem[{{Brunner} {et~al.}(2000){Brunner}, {Szalay}, \&
735: {Connolly}}]{brunner:angcf}
736: {Brunner}, R.~J., {Szalay}, A.~S., \& {Connolly}, A.~J. 2000, \apj, 541, 527
737:
738: \bibitem[{{Budav{\'a}ri} {et~al.}(2001)}]{budavari:qsophotoz}
739: {Budav{\'a}ri}, T. {et~al.} 2001, \aj, 122, 1163
740:
741: \bibitem[{{Cannon} {et~al.}(2006)}]{cannon:2slaqlrg}
742: {Cannon}, R. {et~al.} 2006, \mnras, 372, 425
743:
744: \bibitem[{{Cardelli} {et~al.}(1989){Cardelli}, {Clayton}, \&
745: {Mathis}}]{cardelli:extinction}
746: {Cardelli}, J.~A., {Clayton}, G.~C., \& {Mathis}, J.~S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245
747:
748: \bibitem[{{Coe} {et~al.}(2006){Coe}, {Ben{\'{\i}}tez}, {S{\'a}nchez}, {Jee},
749: {Bouwens}, \& {Ford}}]{coe:photoz}
750: {Coe}, D., {Ben{\'{\i}}tez}, N., {S{\'a}nchez}, S.~F., {Jee}, M., {Bouwens},
751: R., \& {Ford}, H. 2006, \aj, 132, 926
752:
753: \bibitem[{{Collister} {et~al.}(2007)}]{collister:megazlrg}
754: {Collister}, A. {et~al.} 2007, \mnras, 375, 68
755:
756: \bibitem[{{Collister} \& {Lahav}(2004)}]{collister:annz}
757: {Collister}, A.~A. \& {Lahav}, O. 2004, \pasp, 116, 345
758:
759: \bibitem[{{Connolly} {et~al.}(1998){Connolly}, {Szalay}, \&
760: {Brunner}}]{connolly:angcf}
761: {Connolly}, A.~J., {Szalay}, A.~S., \& {Brunner}, R.~J. 1998, \apjl, 499, L125
762:
763: \bibitem[{{Cover} \& {Hart}(1967)}]{cover:nn}
764: {Cover}, T.~M. \& {Hart}, P.~E. 1967, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
765: 13, 21
766:
767: \bibitem[{{Croom} {et~al.}(2004){Croom}, {Smith}, {Boyle}, {Shanks}, {Miller},
768: {Outram}, \& {Loaring}}]{croom:qsolf}
769: {Croom}, S.~M., {Smith}, R.~J., {Boyle}, B.~J., {Shanks}, T., {Miller}, L.,
770: {Outram}, P.~J., \& {Loaring}, N.~S. 2004, \mnras, 349, 1397
771:
772: \bibitem[{{Csabai} {et~al.}(2003)}]{csabai:edrphotoz}
773: {Csabai}, I. {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 125, 580
774:
775: \bibitem[{{Eisenstein} {et~al.}(2001)}]{eisenstein:lrgsample}
776: {Eisenstein}, D.~J. {et~al.} 2001, \aj, 122, 2267
777:
778: \bibitem[{{Firth} {et~al.}(2003){Firth}, {Lahav}, \&
779: {Somerville}}]{firth:annphotoz}
780: {Firth}, A.~E., {Lahav}, O., \& {Somerville}, R.~S. 2003, \mnras, 339, 1195
781:
782: \bibitem[{{Goldberg}(1989)}]{goldberg:genetic}
783: {Goldberg}, D.~E. 1989, {Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and
784: Machine Learning} (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley)
785:
786: \bibitem[{Goldberg(2002)}]{goldberg:design}
787: Goldberg, D.~E. 2002, Design of innovation: {L}essons from and for competent
788: genetic algorithms (Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers)
789:
790: \bibitem[{{Gwyn} \& {Hartwick}(1996)}]{gwyn:photoz}
791: {Gwyn}, S.~D.~J. \& {Hartwick}, F.~D.~A. 1996, \apjl, 468, L77
792:
793: \bibitem[{{Hastie} {et~al.}(2001){Hastie}, {Tibshirani}, \&
794: {Friedman}}]{hastie:learning}
795: {Hastie}, T., {Tibshirani}, R., \& {Friedman}, J. 2001, {The Elements of
796: Statistical Learning} (Springer)
797:
798: \bibitem[{{Haupt} \& {Haupt}(1998)}]{haupt:genetic}
799: {Haupt}, R.~L. \& {Haupt}, S.~E. 1998, {Practical Genetic Algorithms} (New
800: York: Wiley Inter-Science)
801:
802: \bibitem[{{Hogg} {et~al.}(1998)}]{hogg:photoz}
803: {Hogg}, D.~W. {et~al.} 1998, \aj, 115, 1418
804:
805: \bibitem[{{Holland}(1975)}]{holland:genetic}
806: {Holland}, J.~H. 1975, {Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An
807: Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control and Artificial
808: Intelligence} (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press)
809:
810: \bibitem[{{Koo}(1985)}]{koo:photoz}
811: {Koo}, D.~C. 1985, \aj, 90, 418
812:
813: \bibitem[{{Lanzetta} {et~al.}(1996){Lanzetta}, {Yahil}, \&
814: {Fernandez-Soto}}]{lanzetta:photoz}
815: {Lanzetta}, K.~M., {Yahil}, A., \& {Fernandez-Soto}, A. 1996, \nat, 381, 759
816:
817: \bibitem[{{Lawrence} {et~al.}(2006)}]{lawrence:ukidss}
818: {Lawrence}, A. {et~al.} 2006, preprint, astro-ph/0604426
819:
820: \bibitem[{{Loh} \& {Spillar}(1986)}]{loh:photoz}
821: {Loh}, E.~D. \& {Spillar}, E.~J. 1986, \apj, 303, 154
822:
823: \bibitem[{{Martin} {et~al.}(2005)}]{martin:galex}
824: {Martin}, D.~C. {et~al.} 2005, \apjl, 619, L1
825:
826: \bibitem[{{Mobasher} {et~al.}(1996){Mobasher}, {Rowan-Robinson}, {Georgakakis},
827: \& {Eaton}}]{mobasher:photoz}
828: {Mobasher}, B., {Rowan-Robinson}, M., {Georgakakis}, A., \& {Eaton}, N. 1996,
829: \mnras, 282, L7
830:
831: \bibitem[{{Myers} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Myers}, {Brunner}, {Nichol},
832: {Richards}, {Schneider}, \& {Bahcall}}]{myers:nbckdeall}
833: {Myers}, A.~D., {Brunner}, R.~J., {Nichol}, R.~C., {Richards}, G.~T.,
834: {Schneider}, D.~P., \& {Bahcall}, N.~A. 2007{\natexlab{a}}, ApJ, in press
835: (astro-ph/0612190)
836:
837: \bibitem[{{Myers} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Myers}, {Brunner}, {Richards},
838: {Nichol}, {Schneider}, \& {Bahcall}}]{myers:nbckdesmall}
839: {Myers}, A.~D., {Brunner}, R.~J., {Richards}, G.~T., {Nichol}, R.~C.,
840: {Schneider}, D.~P., \& {Bahcall}, N.~A. 2007{\natexlab{b}}, ApJ, in press,
841: (astro-ph/0612191)
842:
843: \bibitem[{{Myers} {et~al.}(2006)}]{myers:qsoevoln}
844: {Myers}, A.~D. {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 638, 622
845:
846: \bibitem[{{Padmanabhan} {et~al.}(2005)}]{padmanabhan:photoz}
847: {Padmanabhan}, N. {et~al.} 2005, \mnras, 359, 237
848:
849: \bibitem[{{Richards} {et~al.}(2001)}]{richards:qsophotoz}
850: {Richards}, G.~T. {et~al.} 2001, \aj, 122, 1151
851:
852: \bibitem[{{Sawicki} {et~al.}(1997){Sawicki}, {Lin}, \& {Yee}}]{sawicki:photoz}
853: {Sawicki}, M.~J., {Lin}, H., \& {Yee}, H.~K.~C. 1997, \aj, 113, 1
854:
855: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} {et~al.}(1998){Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&
856: {Davis}}]{schlegel:dustmaps}
857: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
858:
859: \bibitem[{{Skrutskie} {et~al.}(2006)}]{skrutskie:2mass}
860: {Skrutskie}, M.~F. {et~al.} 2006, \aj, 131, 1163
861:
862: \bibitem[{{Stoughton} {et~al.}(2002)}]{stoughton:edr}
863: {Stoughton}, C. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 485
864:
865: \bibitem[{Tagliaferri {et~al.}(2002)Tagliaferri, Longo, Andreon, Capozziello,
866: Donalek, \& Giordanoet}]{tagliaferri:nnphotoz}
867: Tagliaferri, R., Longo, G., Andreon, S., Capozziello, S., Donalek, C., \&
868: Giordanoet, G. 2002, preprint, astro-ph/0203445
869:
870: \bibitem[{{Vanden Berk} {et~al.}(2005)}]{vandenberk:empirical}
871: {Vanden Berk}, D.~E. {et~al.} 2005, \aj, 129, 2047
872:
873: \bibitem[{{Vanzella} {et~al.}(2004)}]{vanzella:hdfannphotoz}
874: {Vanzella}, E. {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 423, 761
875:
876: \bibitem[{{Wadadekar}(2005)}]{wadadekar:photoz}
877: {Wadadekar}, Y. 2005, \pasp, 117, 79
878:
879: \bibitem[{{Wang} {et~al.}(1998){Wang}, {Bahcall}, \& {Turner}}]{wang:photoz}
880: {Wang}, Y., {Bahcall}, N., \& {Turner}, E.~L. 1998, \aj, 116, 2081
881:
882: \bibitem[{{Way} \& {Srivastava}(2006)}]{way:photoz}
883: {Way}, M.~J. \& {Srivastava}, A.~N. 2006, \apj, 647, 102
884:
885: \bibitem[{{Weinstein} {et~al.}(2004)}]{weinstein:sdssqsophotoz}
886: {Weinstein}, M.~A. {et~al.} 2004, \apjs, 155, 243
887:
888: \bibitem[{{Welge} {et~al.}(1999){Welge}, {Hsu}, {Auvil}, {Redman}, \&
889: {Tcheng}}]{welge:d2k}
890: {Welge}, M., {Hsu}, W.~H., {Auvil}, L.~S., {Redman}, T.~M., \& {Tcheng}, D.
891: 1999, in 12th National Conference on High Performance Networking and
892: Computing (SC99)
893:
894: \bibitem[{{Werner} {et~al.}(2004)}]{werner:spitzer}
895: {Werner}, M.~W. {et~al.} 2004, \apjs, 154, 1
896:
897: \bibitem[{{Williams} {et~al.}(1996)}]{williams:hdfn}
898: {Williams}, R.~E. {et~al.} 1996, \aj, 112, 1335
899:
900: \bibitem[{{Williams} {et~al.}(2000)}]{williams:hdfs}
901: ---. 2000, \aj, 120, 2735
902:
903: \bibitem[{{Witten} \& {Frank}(2000)}]{witten:datamining}
904: {Witten}, I.~H. \& {Frank}, E. 2000, {Data Mining} (Morgan Kaufmann)
905:
906: \bibitem[{{Wolf} {et~al.}(2003){Wolf}, {Wisotzki}, {Borch}, {Dye},
907: {Kleinheinrich}, \& {Meisenheimer}}]{wolf:qsophotoz}
908: {Wolf}, C., {Wisotzki}, L., {Borch}, A., {Dye}, S., {Kleinheinrich}, M., \&
909: {Meisenheimer}, K. 2003, \aap, 408, 499
910:
911: \bibitem[{{Wolf} {et~al.}(2004)}]{wolf:combo17}
912: {Wolf}, C. {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 421, 913
913:
914: \bibitem[{{Wu} {et~al.}(2004){Wu}, {Zhang}, \& {Zhou}}]{wu:qsophotoz}
915: {Wu}, X.-B., {Zhang}, W., \& {Zhou}, X. 2004, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and
916: Astrophysics, 4, 17
917:
918: \bibitem[{{York} {et~al.}(2000)}]{york:sdss}
919: {York}, D.~G. {et~al.} 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
920:
921: \end{thebibliography}
922:
923: \end{document}
924: