4.6 Article

A PUBLIC, K-SELECTED, OPTICAL-TO-NEAR-INFRARED CATALOG OF THE EXTENDED CHANDRA DEEP FIELD SOUTH (ECDFS) FROM THE MULTIWAVELENGTH SURVEY BY YALE-CHILE (MUSYC)

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT SERIES
卷 183, 期 2, 页码 295-319

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/183/2/295

关键词

catalogs; galaxies: distances and redshifts; galaxies: fundamental parameters; galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: photometry; surveys

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a new, K-selected, optical-to-near infrared photometric catalog of the Extended Chandra Deep Field South (ECDFS), making it publicly available to the astronomical community.(22) The data set is founded on publicly available imaging, supplemented by original z' JK imaging data collected as part of the MUltiwavelength Survey by Yale-Chile (MUSYC). The final photometric catalog consists of photometry derived from U U (38) BVRIz' JK imaging covering the full 1/2 x 1/2 square degrees. of the ECDFS, plus H-band photometry for approximately 80% of the field. The 5 sigma flux limit for point sources is K-tot((AB)) = 22.0. This is also the nominal completeness and reliability limit of the catalog: the empirical completeness for 21.75 < K < 22.00 is greater than or similar to 85%. We have verified the quality of the catalog through both internal consistency checks, and comparisons to other existing and publicly available catalogs. As well as the photometric catalog, we also present catalogs of photometric redshifts and rest-frame photometry derived from the 10-band photometry. We have collected robust spectroscopic redshift determinations from published sources for 1966 galaxies in the catalog. Based on these sources, we have achieved a (1 sigma) photometric redshift accuracy of Delta z/(1 + z) = 0.036, with an outlier fraction of 7.8%. Most of these outliers are X-ray sources. Finally, we describe and release a utility for interpolating rest-frame photometry from observed spectral energy distributions, dubbed InterRest.(23)

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

4.6
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