4.7 Article

CANDELS/GOODS-S, CDFS, AND ECDFS: PHOTOMETRIC REDSHIFTS FOR NORMAL AND X-RAY-DETECTED GALAXIES

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 796, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/60

Keywords

galaxies: active; galaxies: distances and redshifts; galaxies: photometry; X-rays: galaxies

Funding

  1. NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute
  2. Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA [NAS5-26555]
  3. NASA through an award issued by JPL/Caltech
  4. FP7 Career Integration Grant eEASy [CIG 321913]
  5. [HST GO-12060]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present photometric redshifts and associated probability distributions for all detected sources in the Extended Chandra Deep Field South (ECDFS). This work makes use of the most up-to-date data from the Cosmic Assembly Near-IR Deep Legacy Survey (CANDELS) and the Taiwan ECDFS Near-Infrared Survey (TENIS) in addition to other data. We also revisit multi-wavelength counterparts for published X-ray sources from the 4 Ms CDFS and 250 ks ECDFS surveys, finding reliable counterparts for 1207 out of 1259 sources (similar to 96%). Data used for photometric redshifts include intermediate-band photometry deblended using the TFIT method, which is used for the first time in this work. Photometric redshifts for X-ray source counterparts are based on a new library of active galactic nuclei/galaxy hybrid templates appropriate for the faint X-ray population in the CDFS. Photometric redshift accuracy for normal galaxies is 0.010 and for X-ray sources is 0.014 and outlier fractions are 4% and 5.2%, respectively. The results within the CANDELS coverage area are even better, as demonstrated both by spectroscopic comparison and by galaxy-pair statistics. Intermediate-band photometry, even if shallow, is valuable when combined with deep broadband photometry. For best accuracy, templates must include emission lines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available