Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Euclid: Photometric redshift calibration with self-organising maps

  • W. Roster*
  • , A. H. Wright
  • , H. Hildebrandt
  • , R. Reischke
  • , O. Ilbert
  • , D. W. Assignies
  • , M. Manera
  • , M. Bolzonella
  • , D. C. Masters
  • , S. Paltani
  • , W. G. Hartley
  • , Y. Kang
  • , H. Hoekstra
  • , B. Altieri
  • , A. Amara
  • , S. Andreon
  • , N. Auricchio
  • , C. Baccigalupi
  • , M. Baldi
  • , A. Balestra
  • S. Bardelli, P. Battaglia, R. Bender, A. Biviano, E. Branchini, M. Brescia, S. Camera, G. Cañas-Herrera, V. Capobianco, C. Carbone, V. F. Cardone, J. Carretero, R. Casas, S. Casas, F. J. Castander, M. Castellano, G. Castignani, S. Cavuoti, K. C. Chambers, A. Cimatti, C. Colodro-Conde, G. Congedo, C. J. Conselice, L. Conversi, Y. Copin, A. Costille, F. Courbin, H. M. Courtois, M. Cropper, A. Da Silva, H. Degaudenzi, S. de la Torre, G. De Lucia, F. Dubath, C. A.J. Duncan, X. Dupac, S. Dusini, S. Escoffier, M. Farina, R. Farinelli, S. Farrens, F. Faustini, S. Ferriol, F. Finelli, P. Fosalba, N. Fourmanoit, M. Frailis, E. Franceschi, M. Fumana, S. Galeotta, K. George, W. Gillard, B. Gillis, C. Giocoli, J. Gracia-Carpio, A. Grazian, F. Grupp, S. V.H. Haugan, W. Holmes, F. Hormuth, A. Hornstrup, P. Hudelot, K. Jahnke, M. Jhabvala, B. Joachimi, E. Keihänen, S. Kermiche, B. Kubik, H. Kurki-Suonio, A. M.C. Le Brun, D. Le Mignant, S. Ligori, P. B. Lilje, V. Lindholm, I. Lloro, D. Maino, E. Maiorano, O. Mansutti, O. Marggraf, M. Martinelli, N. Martinet, F. Marulli, R. J. Massey, E. Medinaceli, S. Mei, M. Melchior, Y. Mellier, M. Meneghetti, E. Merlin, G. Meylan, A. Mora, M. Moresco, L. Moscardini, R. Nakajima, C. Neissner, S. M. Niemi, C. Padilla, F. Pasian, K. Pedersen, V. Pettorino, S. Pires, G. Polenta, M. Poncet, L. A. Popa, L. Pozzetti, F. Raison, R. Rebolo, A. Renzi, J. Rhodes, G. Riccio, E. Romelli, M. Roncarelli, C. Rosset, E. Rossetti, R. Saglia, Z. Sakr, D. Sapone, B. Sartoris, M. Schirmer, P. Schneider, T. Schrabback, M. Scodeggio, A. Secroun, E. Sefusatti, G. Seidel, S. Serrano, P. Simon, C. Sirignano, G. Sirri, J. Skottfelt, L. Stanco, J. Steinwagner, P. Tallada-Crespí, A. N. Taylor, H. I. Teplitz, I. Tereno, N. Tessore, S. Toft, R. Toledo-Moreo, F. Torradeflot, I. Tutusaus, L. Valenziano, J. Valiviita, T. Vassallo, G. Verdoes Kleijn, A. Veropalumbo, Y. Wang, J. Weller, G. Zamorani, F. M. Zerbi, E. Zucca, C. Burigana, L. Gabarra, C. Porciani, V. Scottez, M. Sereno
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics
  • Ruhr University Bochum
  • University of Bonn
  • CNRS
  • Institute for High Energy Physics
  • Autonomous University of Barcelona
  • Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale e Fisica Cosmica di Bologna
  • California Institute of Technology
  • University of Geneva
  • Leiden University
  • European Space Astronomy Centre
  • University of Surrey
  • Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera
  • University of Trieste
  • National Institute for Nuclear Physics
  • Astronomical Observatory of Padua
  • Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
  • University of Genoa
  • University of Naples Federico II
  • University of Turin
  • National Institute for Astrophysics
  • CIEMAT
  • CSIC - Institute of Space Sciences
  • RWTH Aachen University
  • Institute of Space Studies of Catalonia
  • Osservatorio Astronomico Roma
  • Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte
  • University of Hawai'i at Mānoa
  • University of Bologna
  • Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias
  • University of Edinburgh
  • University of Manchester
  • Universite Claude Bernard Lyon 1
  • University of Barcelona
  • Institut national de physique nucléaire et de physique des particules
  • University College London
  • University of Lisbon
  • Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste
  • French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission
  • Italian Space Agency
  • University of Oslo
  • Felix Hormuth Engineering
  • Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris
  • Max Planck Institute for Astronomy
  • NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
  • University of Helsinki
  • Observatoire de Paris
  • SKA Organisation
  • University of Milan
  • Durham University
  • Université Paris 7
  • University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland
  • Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne
  • European Space Agency - ESA
  • ESTEC
  • University of Copenhagen
  • Centre national d'études spatiales
  • Institute of Space Science
  • University of La Laguna
  • University of Padua
  • Heidelberg University 
  • Universidad de Chile
  • University of Innsbruck
  • Open University Milton Keynes
  • Port d’Informació Científica
  • Technical University of Cartagena
  • Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse III
  • University of Groningen
  • University of Oxford
  • Université catholique de Lille

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

3 Downloads (Orbit)

Abstract

The Euclid large-scale weak-lensing survey aims to trace the evolution of cosmic structures up to redshift z ∼ 3 and beyond. Its success depends critically on obtaining highly accurate mean redshifts for ensembles of galaxies n(z) in all tomographic bins, essential for deriving robust cosmological constraints. However, photometric redshifts (photo-zs) are affected by systematic biases, arising from various sources of uncertainty and dominated by selection effects of the spectroscopic sample used for calibration. To address these challenges, we utilised self-organising maps (SOMs) with mock samples resembling the Euclid Wide Survey (EWS) from the Flagship2 simulation, to validate Euclid’s uncertainty requirement of |∆hzi| = hzesti − hzi ≤ 0.002(1 + z) per tomographic bin, assuming DR3-level data. Consequently, we identify the most effective galaxy selection for our tomographic bins, while systematically examining the implementation of quality control cuts to reduce sources of uncertainty. In particular, we observe that defining the redshift tomography using the mean spectroscopic redshift (spec-z) per SOM cell, results in none of the ten tomographic redshift bins satisfying the requirement. In contrast, the redshift tomography on the photo-zs of the EWS-like sample yields superior results, with eight out of ten bins [0 < z ≤ 2.5] meeting the Euclid requirement. To enhance the realism of our study, we morph our calibration sample to mimic the C3R2 survey in incremental steps. In this context, a maximum of six out of ten bins meet the requirement, strongly advocating the adoption of a redshift tomography defined by the photo-zs of individual galaxies rather than the commonly used mean spec-z of SOM cells. To examine the impact on the expected biases for Ωm, σ8, and ∆w0 measured by Euclid, we perform a Fisher forecast for cosmic shear only, based on our redshift uncertainties. Here, we find that even under an evaluation of the uncertainty where the impact of the redshift bias is substantial, most absolute biases remain below 0.1σ in the idealised scenario and below 0.3σ in the more realistic case.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberA277
JournalAstronomy and Astrophysics
Volume707
Number of pages19
ISSN0004-6361
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2026

Keywords

  • Cosmological parameters
  • Dark energy
  • Galaxies: photometry
  • Methods: data analysis
  • Techniques: photometric

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Euclid: Photometric redshift calibration with self-organising maps'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this