Euclid preparation. Establishing the quality of the 2D reconstruction of the filaments of the cosmic web with DisPerSE using Euclid photometric redshifts
Euclid Collaboration: N. Malavasi (1, 2), F. Sarron (3, 4, 5), U. Kuchner (6), C. Laigle (7), K. Kraljic (8), P. Jablonka (9), M. Balogh (10, 11), S. Bardelli (12), M. Bolzonella (12), J. Brinchmann (13, 14), G. De Lucia (15), F. Fontanot (15, 16), C. Gouin (7)

TL;DR
This study evaluates the accuracy of cosmic filament detection in the Euclid survey using photometric redshifts by comparing with true redshift data, developing a method that incorporates geometric and astrophysical factors.
Contribution
It introduces a novel comparison method for filament skeletons derived from photometric versus true redshifts, accounting for geometry and galaxy properties.
Findings
Photometric redshifts enable large volume filament detection with acceptable accuracy.
The developed comparison method improves filament matching by including geometric and astrophysical considerations.
Results support the reliability of filament detection in Euclid-like surveys despite redshift uncertainties.
Abstract
Cosmic filaments are prominent structures of the matter distribution of the Universe. Modern detection algorithms are an efficient way to identify filaments in large-scale observational surveys of galaxies. Many of these methods were originally designed to work with simulations and/or well-sampled spectroscopic surveys. When spectroscopic redshifts are not available, the filaments of the cosmic web can be detected in projection using photometric redshifts in slices along the Line of Sight, which enable the exploration of larger cosmic volumes. However, this comes at the expense of a lower redshift precision. It is therefore crucial to assess the differences between filaments extracted from exact redshifts and from photometric redshifts for a specific survey. We apply this analysis to capture the uncertainties and biases of filament extractions introduced by using the photometric sample…
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.
