PHAT: PHoto-z Accuracy Testing

TL;DR

PHAT is an international benchmarking initiative that evaluates and compares the accuracy of various photo-z estimation methods using simulated and real survey data, highlighting current strengths and limitations.

Contribution

This study provides the first systematic, quantitative comparison of multiple photo-z codes on standardized test datasets, establishing a benchmark for future improvements.

Findings

Most methods agree on PHAT0 but differ significantly in scatter.

Larger accuracy spread observed in PHAT1 with real data.

Empirical codes tend to have smaller biases than template-based codes.

Abstract

Here we introduce PHAT, the PHoto-z Accuracy Testing programme, an international initiative to test and compare different methods of photo-z estimation. Two different test environments are set up, one (PHAT0) based on simulations to test the basic functionality of the different photo-z codes, and another one (PHAT1) based on data from the GOODS survey. The accuracy of the different methods is expressed and ranked by the global photo-z bias, scatter, and outlier rates. Most methods agree well on PHAT0 but produce photo-z scatters that can differ by up to a factor of two even in this idealised case. A larger spread in accuracy is found for PHAT1. Few methods benefit from the addition of mid-IR photometry. Remaining biases and systematic effects can be explained by shortcomings in the different template sets and the use of priors on the one hand and an insufficient training set on the other hand. Scatters of 4-8% in Delta_z/(1+z) were obtained, consistent with other studies. However, somewhat larger outlier rates (>7.5% with Delta_z/(1+z)>0.15; >4.5% after cleaning) are found for all codes. There is a general trend that empirical codes produce smaller biases than template-based codes. The systematic, quantitative comparison of different photo-z codes presented here is a snapshot of the current state-of-the-art of photo-z estimation and sets a standard for the assessment of photo-z accuracy in the future. The rather large outlier rates reported here for PHAT1 on real data should be investigated further since they are most probably also present (and possibly hidden) in many other studies. The test data sets are publicly available and can be used to compare new methods to established ones and help in guiding future photo-z method development. (abridged)