4.7 Article

Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): autoz spectral redshift measurements, confidence and errors

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu727

关键词

methods: data analysis; techniques: spectroscopic; surveys

资金

  1. STFC (UK)
  2. ARC (Australia)
  3. AAO
  4. STFC [ST/K003577/1, ST/F002300/1, ST/J001465/1, ST/L000652/1, ST/J002291/1, ST/I001573/1, ST/F007051/1, ST/I001166/1, ST/I00162X/1, ST/H008519/1, ST/L00075X/1, ST/F002289/1, ST/I003088/1, ST/H008578/1, ST/I000976/1, PP/F000065/1, ST/H00131X/1, ST/J001422/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I001573/1, ST/J002291/1, ST/H00131X/1, ST/K003577/1, ST/L00075X/1, ST/F002300/1, PP/F000065/1, ST/L000652/1, ST/H008519/1, ST/I000976/1, ST/I003088/1, ST/I00162X/1, ST/F002289/1, ST/H008578/1, ST/F007051/1, ST/I001166/1, ST/J001422/1, ST/J001465/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey has obtained spectra of over 230 000 targets using the Anglo-Australian Telescope. To homogenize the redshift measurements and improve the reliability, a fully automatic redshift code was developed (autoz). The measurements were made using a cross-correlation method for both the absorption- and the emission-line spectra. Large deviations in the high-pass-filtered spectra are partially clipped in order to be robust against uncorrected artefacts and to reduce the weight given to single-line matches. A single figure of merit (FOM) was developed that puts all template matches on to a similar confidence scale. The redshift confidence as a function of the FOM was fitted with a tanh function using a maximum likelihood method applied to repeat observations of targets. The method could be adapted to provide robust automatic redshifts for other large galaxy redshift surveys. For the GAMA survey, there was a substantial improvement in the reliability of assigned redshifts and in the lowering of redshift uncertainties with a median velocity uncertainty of 33 km s(-1).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据