Photometric redshifts for the CFHTLS T0004 Deep and Wide fields
J. Coupon, O. Ilbert, M. Kilbinger, H. J. McCracken, Y. Mellier, S., Arnouts, E. Bertin, P. Hudelot, M. Schultheis, O. Le F\`evre, V. Le Brun, L., Guzzo, S. Bardelli, E. Zucca, M. Bolzonella, B. Garilli, G. Zamorani, A., Zanichelli

TL;DR
This paper presents calibrated photometric redshifts for the CFHTLS T0004 survey, demonstrating high accuracy and low outlier rates across deep and wide fields, with a comprehensive public data release.
Contribution
It provides a detailed calibration and validation of photometric redshifts using template-fitting in the CFHTLS T0004 data, including a large public catalog of galaxy redshifts.
Findings
Achieved dispersion of 0.028 in Deep fields and 0.036 in Wide fields.
Maintained systematic redshift bias below 1% for Bright Wide field galaxies.
Reduced star contamination from 50% to 8% in high-density stellar fields.
Abstract
We compute photometric redshifts based on the template-fitting method in the fourth public release of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey. This unique multi-colour catalogue comprises u*,g',r',i',z' photometry in four deep fields of 1 deg2 each and 35 deg2 distributed over three Wide fields. Our photometric redshifts are calibrated with and compared to 16,983 high-quality spectroscopic redshifts from several surveys. We find a dispersion of 0.028 and an outlier rate of 3.5% in the Deep field at i'AB < 24 and a dispersion of 0.036 and an outlier rate of 2.8% in the Wide field at i'AB < 22.5. Beyond i'AB = 22.5 in the Wide field the number of outliers rises from 5% to 10% at i'AB<23 and i'AB<24 respectively. For the Wide sample, we find the systematic redshift bias keeps below 1% to i'AB < 22.5, whereas we find no significant bias in the Deep field. We investigated the effect…
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.
