Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The J-PAS survey: The effect of photometric redshift errors on cosmic voids

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.00846 v1 pith:MIUYHUK3 submitted 2025-03-02 astro-ph.CO

The J-PAS survey: The effect of photometric redshift errors on cosmic voids

classification astro-ph.CO
keywords voidssampleperturbederrorsredshiftsurveyvolumedensity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We investigated the impact of photometric redshift errors in the ongoing Javalambre Physics of the Accelerating Universe Astrophysical Survey (J-PAS) on void identification and properties using a watershed-based method, aiming to assess the recovery of individual voids and the overall void environment. We created galaxy mock catalogues for redshift z = 0.1 using the IllustrisTNG300-1 simulation, defining two datasets: an $ideal$ sample ($m_r < 21$ mag) and a $perturbed$ sample with the Z-coordinate errors mimicking J-PAS's line-of-sight errors, derived from the precursor miniJPAS survey data. We identified voids using ZOBOV, a watershed algorithm. We found 1065 voids in the $ideal$ sample and 2558 voids in the $perturbed$ sample. The $perturbed$ sample voids have, on average, smaller sizes and denser interiors. We filtered out voids based on density and radius in order to eliminate overdense and small spurious instances. The stacked density profile of filtered voids in the $perturbed$ sample remains close to the average density even at the boundary peak, indicating a strong blurring of structures by the redshift errors. The number of $ideal$ sample voids for which at least $50\%$ of the volume is recovered by a void in the $perturbed$ sample is 53 (29 for the filtered sample). The volume occupied by these voids is less than $10\%$ of the simulation volume. Merging voids in the $perturbed$ sample marginally improves the recovery. The overall volumes defined as voids in the two samples have an overlap of $80\%$, making up $61\%$ of the simulation box volume. While some statistical properties of voids might be recovered sufficiently well, the watershed algorithms may not be optimal for recovering the large-scale structure voids if applied straight to photometric redshift survey data.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.