4.6 Article

THE zCOSMOS 10k-BRIGHT SPECTROSCOPIC SAMPLE

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT SERIES
卷 184, 期 2, 页码 218-229

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/184/2/218

关键词

cosmology: observations; galaxies: active; galaxies: distances and redshifts; galaxies: evolution; large-scale structure of universe; quasars: general; surveys

资金

  1. European Southern Observatory (ESO) Very Large Telescope (VLT) [175]
  2. NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope [NAS 5-26555]
  3. National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
  4. National Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present spectroscopic redshiftsof a large sample of galaxies with I(AB)< 22.5 in the COSMOS field, measured from spectra of 10,644 objects that have been obtained in the first two years of observations in the zCOSMOS-bright redshift survey. These include a statistically complete subset of 10,109 objects. The average accuracy of individual redshifts is 110 km s(-1), independent of redshift. The reliability of individual redshifts is described by a Confidence Class that has been empirically calibrated through repeat spectroscopic observations of over 600 galaxies. There is very good agreement between spectroscopic and photometric redshifts for the most secure Confidence Classes. For the less secure Confidence Classes, there is a good correspondence between the fraction of objects with a consistent photometric redshift and the spectroscopic repeatability, suggesting that the photometric redshifts can be used to indicate which of the less secure spectroscopic redshifts are likely right and which are probably wrong, and to give an indication of the nature of objects for which we failed to determine a redshift. Using this approach, we can construct a spectroscopic sample that is 99% reliable and which is 88% complete in the sample as a whole, and 95% complete in the redshift range 0.5 < z < 0.8. The luminosity and mass completeness levels of the zCOSMOS-bright sample of galaxies is also discussed.

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