A blind test of photometric redshifts on ground-based data
H. Hildebrandt, C. Wolf, N. Benitez

TL;DR
This study evaluates the performance of different photometric redshift codes on ground-based data, revealing inconsistencies in error estimates and emphasizing the importance of calibration and template choice for accurate redshift determination.
Contribution
It provides a comparative analysis of multiple photo-z codes on various datasets, highlighting the variability in accuracy and the need for improved error estimation methods.
Findings
Photo-z error estimates often do not correlate with actual accuracy.
Different codes perform better in different regimes.
Secure spectroscopic subsamples may bias performance assessments.
Abstract
Aims. We analyse the relative performance of different photo-z codes in blind applications to ground-based data. Methods. We tested the codes on imaging datasets with different depths and filter coverages and compared the results to large spectroscopic catalogues. The photo-z error behaviour was analysed to select cleaner subsamples with more secure photo-z estimates. We consider Hyperz, BPZ, and the code used in the CADIS, COMBO-17, and HIROCS surveys. Results. The photo-z error estimates of the three codes do not correlate tightly with the accuracy of the photo-z's. While very large errors sometimes indicate a true catastrophic photo-z failure, smaller errors are usually not meaningful. For any given dataset, we find significant differences in redshift accuracy and outlier rates between the different codes when compared to spectroscopic redshifts. However, different codes excel in…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
