Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Photometric Redshift Estimation for Rubin Observatory Data Preview 1 with Redshift Assessment Infrastructure Layers (RAIL)

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Photometric redshifts from Rubin's first commissioning data, produced by the RAIL pipeline, reach per-galaxy scatter near 0.03 and outlier rates near 10%, meeting the LSST Year-1 accuracy targets for machine-learning methods on bright galax

desk verdict First real-data RAIL photo-z benchmark on Rubin DP1; genuinely useful public products, but the Y1 performance claim leans on mixed-quality reference labels and a clean spectroscopic check is still missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.07370 v1 pith:RBGSBUCI submitted 2025-10-08 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.GA

T. Zhang , E. Charles , J.F. Crenshaw , S.J. Schmidt , P. Adari , J. Gschwend , S. Mau , B. Andrews
show 82 more authors
E. Aubourg Y. Bains K. Bechtol A. Boucaud D. Boutigny P. Burchat J. Chevalier J. Chiang H.-F. Chiang D. Clowe J. Cohen-Tanugi C. Combet A. Connolly S. Dagoret-Campagne P.N. Daly F. Daruich G. Daubard J. De Vicente H. Drass K. Fanning E. Gawiser M. Graham L.P. Guy Q. Hang P. Ingraham O. Ilbert M. Jarvis M.J. Jee T. Jenness A. Johnson C. Juramy-Gilles S.M. Kahn J.B. Kalmbach Y. Kang A. Kannawadi L.S. Kelvin S. Liang O. Lynn N.B. Lust M. Lutfi A. Malz R. Mandelbaum S. Marshall J. Meyers M. Migliore M. Moniez J. Neveu J.A. Newman E. Nourbakhsh D. Oldag H. Park S. Pelesky A.A. Plazas Malagón B. Quint M. Rahman A. Rasmussen K. Reil W. Roby A. Roodman C. Roucelle M. Salvato B. Sánchez D. Sanmartim R.H. Schindler J. Scora J. Sebag N. Sedaghat I. Sevilla-Noarbe R. Shirley A. Shugart R. Solomon D. Taranu G. Thayer L. Toribio San Cipriano E. Urbach Y. Utsumi W. van Reeven A. von der Linden C.W. Walter W.M. Wood-Vasey J. Zuntz LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.GA
keywords photometricredshiftsRAILRubinObservatoryLSSTDataPreview1machinelearningtemplatefittingredshiftdistribution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that the RAIL software pipeline can produce trustworthy photometric redshifts from real commissioning data of the Rubin Observatory, not just simulations. Using a reference catalog built from spectroscopic, grism, and multi-band photometric redshifts in the Extended Chandra Deep Field South (ECDFS), it trains and tests six machine-learning and two template-fitting algorithms on ugrizy photometry. The best machine-learning methods reach normalized median absolute deviation scatter of about 0.03, outlier fractions around 10%, and biases below 0.005, satisfying the LSST Year-1 requirement for per-galaxy redshift accuracy on a bright, high-signal-to-noise sample. The paper also shows that adding near-infrared photometry from the Euclid mission sharpens photo-z estimates at redshifts above 1.2, and that stacked probability distributions recover the ensemble redshift distribution in the deep field. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the first systematic demonstration that the Rubin data path can deliver the photo-z products needed for early cosmology analyses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ECDFS reference catalog: a union of 22,622 galaxies with confidence-weighted redshift labels from spectroscopy, grism surveys, and multiband photo-z, cross-matched to DP1 photometry and split 70/30 into training and test sets. Around it, the paper runs the RAIL pipeline, which wraps eight photo-z estimators: six machine-learning methods (FlexZBoost, kNN, CMNN, DNF, TPZ, GPz) and two template-fitting codes (BPZ and LePhare). RAIL produces per-galaxy redshift probability density functions (PDFs); point estimates are the PDF modes, and ensemble n(z) is the stack of PDFs. Evaluation uses delta-z = (z_mode - z_ref)/(1+z_ref), with scatter from normalized median abso

What would settle it

Take only the 7,699 spectroscopically confirmed galaxies in the reference catalog, retrain FlexZBoost without grism or photo-z labels, and measure scatter and bias against the independent spectroscopic matches in the four-band validation field; if the scatter exceeds about 0.1 or the bias exceeds 0.005 there, the claim that RAIL photo-z satisfy the LSST Year-1 requirement on real data would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the RAIL pipeline, applied to Rubin's Data Preview 1, produces photometric redshifts whose machine-learning bias and scatter meet the LSST Year-1 requirements, with scatter (normalized median absolute deviation, NMAD) of about 0.03 and roughly 10% outliers in the six-band sample. The evidence comes from a reference catalog of 22,622 galaxies in ECDFS, of which 7,699 have spectroscopic redshifts, 5,622 grism redshifts, and 9,301 multiband photo-z, all with confidence above 0.9; 70% train the algorithms and 30% form the test set. Across the eight algorithms, FlexZBoost gives the best tomographic binning accuracy at 78.1%, while templa

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the ECDFS reference redshifts being accurate enough to serve as 'truth' for training and testing; with only about a third of them from spectroscopy, a systematic bias in the grism or photo-z labels would shift both training and the reported test metrics in the same direction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If RAIL performs as claimed on real commissioning data, it can be the production photo-z pipeline for Rubin's early data releases, generating per-galaxy PDFs, point estimates, and ensemble redshift distributions at scale.
  • Machine-learning photo-z on bright, high-signal-to-noise galaxies would meet LSST Year-1 bias and scatter requirements, making them usable for tomographic lensing and clustering analyses of early samples.
  • FlexZBoost's 78.1% binning accuracy makes it the strongest candidate among the tested algorithms for assigning galaxies to the five tomographic bins.
  • Combining Rubin optical photometry with Euclid near-infrared bands would improve redshift estimates at z>1.2, where optical-only photo-z degrade.
  • Stacked n(z) from photo-z PDFs in deep fields can recover the underlying redshift distribution, while four-band wide-field applications will need training-set reweighting to avoid imprinting the training redshift distribution.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the reference labels include many grism and multi-band photo-z redshifts, a fair test would re-run the metrics on the spectroscopic subset alone; if scatter there is materially larger than 0.03, the reported numbers are partly inherited from label noise.
  • The paper's caveat that training galaxies are brighter than the full catalog (i<24.6 versus i<26.7) implies the Year-1-satisfying performance will not automatically hold for faint galaxies; a targeted faint-galaxy calibration is the natural next test.
  • The consistent low-redshift bump in template-fitting n(z), attributed to Lyman/Balmer break confusion, suggests that post-processing outlier rejection or a hybrid ML/template combination could remove a systematic that currently inflates outlier rates.
  • The same RAIL workflow, applied to deeper future Rubin data, would test whether the conclusions scale once the training set covers fainter magnitudes and higher redshifts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first systematic photometric redshift (photo-z) analysis of Rubin Observatory Data Preview 1 (DP1) commissioning data using the RAIL framework. The authors assemble a reference sample in the ECDFS field from spectroscopic, grism, and multiband photo-z catalogs, then train and test eight photo-z algorithms (six machine-learning, two template-fitting) on six-band ugrizy and four-band griz photometry. They report per-galaxy scatter sigma_NMAD ~ 0.03, outlier rates around 10%, and a FlexZBoost tomographic binning accuracy of 78.1% on the 6-band test set. They claim that the overall bias and scatter of the machine-learning photo-zs satisfy the LSST Y1 requirement, study the improvement from adding Euclid YJH near-infrared photometry, estimate stacked n(z) distributions, and release per-object photo-z products through the Rubin Science Platform, the Photo-z Server, and LSDB.

Significance. If the performance claims hold, this is a valuable milestone for Rubin/DESC early science: it demonstrates that RAIL can process real ComCam data end-to-end, provides an open and reproducible multi-algorithm comparison, and makes per-galaxy photo-zs and PDFs publicly available. The Euclid NIR cross-match and the n(z) comparisons are also useful for future LSST photo-z work. The main risk is that the headline metrics are computed against a reference sample that is only 53% spectroscopic, so the claimed accuracy relative to true redshift is not yet independently established. The paper's own caveats in Sec. 2.2 make this concern explicit, and the independent DESI validation is not quantified here.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Table 1, Fig. 2 caption] The reference sample used for both training and testing is only partially spectroscopic. Table 1 lists 7,699 spec-z out of 22,622 total reference entries, and the Fig. 2 caption states that after confidence>0.9 cuts the training/test sample is 53% spec-z, 34% grism-z, and 13% multiband photo-z. Sec. 2.2 itself notes that grism and photo-z redshifts have larger scatter/bias that is not captured by the confidence parameter and that PRIMUS grism quality is similar to multiband photo-z. Because the same mixed labels are used for training and for computing the Table 2 metrics, sigma_NMAD~0.03 and eta~0.10 partly measure agreement with noisy references rather than with true redshifts. The DESI validation in Sec. 2.2.2 covers only the four-band SV_38_7 field and is not quantified in this paper (deferred to Charles et al. 2025), so it does not anchor the six-band ECDFS claim. Please score the te
  2. [Sec. 4.1] The hyperparameter optimization procedure is not fully specified. The text states that hyperparameters were adjusted 'to optimize the performance of the photo-z methods,' but it does not state whether the test set (the 30% ECDFS split of Sec. 2.2.1) was used during this optimization. If the test set was used for model selection, the reported Table 2 metrics are optimistically biased. Please clarify whether a separate validation split or cross-validation was used for tuning, and if the test set was used, either re-evaluate on a strictly held-out sample or quantify the selection bias.
  3. [Abstract, Sec. 4.2, Sec. 5] The claim that 'the overall bias and scatter of our machine-learning based photo-zs satisfy the LSST Y1 requirement' is too broad. The evaluation is performed on a bright, high-SNR sample (i-band CModel SNR>20, i<24.6) that is not representative of the full LSST Y1 lens/source samples, and Sec. 5 notes that performance degrades past z~1.2 and at faint magnitudes. The claim should be explicitly scoped to the bright high-SNR sample used here, or the authors should demonstrate that the Y1 requirement is met for the relevant Y1 sample after applying selection weights.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] Typo: 'referece' should be 'reference' in 'sparse or missing redshifts in referece training sets.'
  2. [Sec. 1] Typo: 'evaluate the the photo-z algorithms performance' should read 'evaluate the photo-z algorithms' performance.'
  3. [Table 2 and Fig. 4] Inconsistent capitalization: 'TPZ' in Table 2 vs 'TPz' in Fig. 4 and the text; please standardize.
  4. [Sec. 2.2.1] The statement that average confidence 0.97 implies ~3% outliers assumes confidence is a calibrated probability, but Sec. 2.2 later says confidence does not capture scatter/bias for grism/photo-z. Please reconcile or soften the implied outlier estimate.
  5. [Fig. 5 and Sec. 2.2.2] The grey shaded regions in Fig. 5 are described as LSST Y1/Y10 requirements on 'mean and scatter,' but the panels also show outlier rate; clarify which requirement applies to the outlier panel. Also, 'SNR ratio' in Sec. 2.2.3 is redundant.
  6. [Sec. 5] Typo: 'These products include' appears as 'These products s include' in the first paragraph.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

ECDFS performance metrics are partly self-referential: 47% of the reference 'true' redshifts are grism/photo-z estimates from the same kind of noisy labels used in training, so sigma_NMAD~0.03 is not purely a spectroscopic validation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 2.2; Section 2.2.1; Fig. 2 caption; Section 3.4 Eq. (2); Section 4.2; Table 2]
    "we assembled a reference sample in the Extended Chandra Deep Field South (ECDFS) by collecting galaxies with spec-zs, grism-zs, and high-quality multiband photo-z from multiple surveys listed in Table 1. ... The spec-z, grism-z and photo-z samples compose 53%, 34%, and 13% of the entire training/testing galaxies, respectively. ... Here z_ref is the reference redshift, sometimes referred to as the 'true redshift'."

    The test set on which Table 2 metrics are reported is drawn from the same mixed-label reference catalog used for training. For the 47% of test objects whose z_ref is grism-z or multiband photo-z, the metric Δz = (z_mode - z_ref)/(1+z_ref) compares one photo-z estimate to another photo-z/grism estimate, not to a true redshift. The paper itself concedes grism and photo-z surveys have larger scatter and bias than spec-z and that PRIMUS grism quality resembles multiband photo-z. Thus σ_NMAD~0.03, outlier rates, and binning accuracy are partly in-sample agreement with label sources of the same kind as the predictions, so the central 'LSST Y1 satisfied' claim is not fully independently anchored.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4; Fig. 8]
    "we compare the redshift distributions predicted by each photo-z algorithm against the true redshift distributions from the reference sample."

    The 'true' n(z) in Fig. 8 is the histogram of the same reference catalog that is 47% grism/photo-z (and also supplies training labels). Consequently the claimed recovery of the true ensemble redshift distribution is partly agreement with a reference built from photo-z/grism estimates, not with an independent spectroscopic redshift distribution. The conclusion 'stacked n(z) shows good agreement with the true distribution in the ECDFS test set' inherits the same label-noise circularity as the per-galaxy metrics.

full rationale

The central empirical result σ_NMAD~0.03 with ~10% outliers in the 6-band ECDFS data is not a pure spec-z measurement: the reference/test catalog is 53% spec-z, 34% grism-z, and 13% multiband photo-z, and the paper explicitly notes the latter classes have larger scatter/bias not captured by the confidence parameter. Training ML algorithms on these labels and then scoring them against the same mixed-label test set makes the per-galaxy metrics and the stacked n(z) comparison partly measures of agreement between photo-z estimators rather than photo-z accuracy. An independent DESI spectroscopic cross-match exists, but it validates only the four-band SV_38_7 field and no quantitative σ_NMAD/outlier table is provided for it, so it does not anchor the headline 6-band LSST Y1 claim. I did not find a self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem: RAIL algorithms have external origins (Benítez; Arnouts et al.; Izbicki & Lee; Almosallam et al.), code is public, and no ansatz is smuggled in via author self-citation. The score is set to 5 rather than higher because the sample is not wholly self-referential: 53% of the ECDFS reference labels are spectroscopic, and a separate DESI-spectroscopic validation exists (albeit for 4-band data and unquantified here), so the pipeline retains meaningful independent content despite the partially circular validation of the headline 6-band numbers.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on the reference redshift truth (with ~40% of labels from grism or photo-z), external SED templates/priors for template fitting, transferability of ECDFS-trained models to other fields, and the assumption that ComCam red leak is negligible. These are domain assumptions, not derived in this paper; they are partially acknowledged in the conclusions.

free parameters (3)
  • Photo-z algorithm hyperparameters (multiple algorithms) = TPZ: 10 trees/leaf 2; kNN: 10 neigh; GPz: 1000 iter; FlexZBoost: 50 basis; BPZ: 136 SEDs; LePhare: zeropoint adj.
    Chosen in Section 4.1 to optimize metric performance; headline scatter/outlier numbers depend on this tuning and could be optimistic if the test set was used for tuning.
  • Reference sample confidence assignments = default 0.95; grism/photo-z 1-f_out; cut conf>0.9
    Section 2.2: these choices set the effective ~3% outlier contamination in training labels; a default 0.95 is assigned to surveys that do not provide confidence.
  • Training/test selection thresholds = i PSF SNR>5; extended>0.5; all-band; CModel SNR>20; i<24.6
    Sections 2.1-2.2.1: headline metrics are measured on this high-SNR, bright subset; the paper acknowledges the training set is shallower than the full DP1 catalog (i<26.7), so the metrics do not represent the full galaxy population.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Reference redshift catalogs are accurate proxies for true redshift after confidence cuts, with ~3% residual outlier contamination.
    Section 2.2 load-bearing for all training and test metrics; the paper itself notes grism and photo-z surveys have larger scatter/bias not captured by confidence.
  • domain assumption The Polletta/Ilbert SED templates plus dust laws and the HDFN prior used by BPZ/LePhare adequately represent ECDFS galaxies.
    Section 3.1: template-fitting results depend entirely on these external SED libraries and priors; no independent verification is provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption The ECDFS training set, despite sample variance, is representative enough to transfer models to EDFS, SV_95_-25 and SV_38_7 after quality cuts.
    Section 5 and Appendix A: the paper acknowledges training-set imprint and sample variance, which invalidates some stacked n(z) estimates at high redshift.
  • domain assumption The ComCam red leak in the g-band is negligible for the selected galaxies.
    Section 5 lists the red leak as a caveat that might impact g-band photometry and photo-z; if significant, trained models and metrics could be biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photometric Redshift Estimation for Rubin Observatory Data Preview 1 with Redshift Assessment Infrastructure Layers (RAIL)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RBGSBUCI

@misc{pith2026251007370,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photometric Redshift Estimation for Rubin Observatory Data Preview 1 with Redshift Assessment Infrastructure Layers (RAIL)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RBGSBUCI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.07370}
}
abstract

We present the first systematic analysis of photometric redshifts (photo-z) estimated from the Rubin Observatory Data Preview 1 (DP1) data taken with the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) Commissioning Camera. Employing the Redshift Assessment Infrastructure Layers (RAIL) framework, we apply eight photo-z algorithms to the DP1 photometry, using deep ugrizy coverage in the Extended Chandra Deep Field South (ECDFS) field and griz data in the Rubin_SV_38_7 field. In the ECDFS field, we construct a reference catalog from spectroscopic redshift (spec-z), grism redshift (grism-z), and multiband photo-z for training and validating photo-z. Performance metrics of the photo-z are evaluated using spec-zs from ECDFS and Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument Data Release 1 samples. Across the algorithms, we achieve per-galaxy photo-z scatter of $\sigma_{\rm NMAD} \sim 0.03$ and outlier fractions around 10% in the 6-band data, with performance degrading at faint magnitudes and z>1.2. The overall bias and scatter of our machine-learning based photo-zs satisfy the LSST Y1 requirement. We also use our photo-z to infer the ensemble redshift distribution n(z). We study the photo-z improvement by including near-infrared photometry from the Euclid mission, and find that Euclid photometry improves photo-z at z>1.2. Our results validate the RAIL pipeline for Rubin photo-z production and demonstrate promising initial performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.07370 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Training set in the ECDFS field. Top left: redshift distribution by methods to obtain redshift. Top right: redshift distribution by surveys. Bottom left: Scatter plot of the ECDFS reference catalog color-coded by redshift. Bottom right: scatter plot of the ECDFS reference catalog color-coded by the survey name. The 1-D distributions are normalized. Our reference galaxy catalog is constructed by a wide range of redsh… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Corner plot of the training set color-magnitude-redshift distributions in the ECDFS field. Each panel shows 95% confidence contours among redshift, adjacent-band colors (𝑢 − 𝑔, 𝑔 − 𝑟, 𝑟 − 𝑖, 𝑖 − 𝑧, 𝑧 − 𝑦), and the 𝑖-band magnitude. The blue contours represent galaxies with spec-𝑧s, the green contours represent grism-𝑧s, the red contours represent the multiband photo-𝑧, while the black contours show all galaxies in t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Redshift and 𝑖-magnitude distribution for matched DESI objects. For the scatter plot and histograms, the BGS sample is shown in green, ELG in orange, and LRG in purple. The distribution of the total sample is shown in black in the outer histograms. The 𝑖-mag distribution peaks at 𝑖 = 23 and the redshift distribution at 𝑧 = 0.8. 3 METHODOLOGY In this section, we briefly describe the eight photo-𝑧 algorithms used in t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two-dimensional histograms comparing the mode of the photometric redshifts (𝑧phot) to reference redshifts (𝑧ref) for eight photo-𝑧 algorithms applied to the DP1 test sample. Each panel shows one algorithm: FlexZBoost, kNN, CMNN, DNF, TPZ, GPz, BPZ, and LePhare. The gre…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Photo-𝑧 performance metrics as a function of redshift (top row) and 𝑖-band magnitude (bottom row) for eight algorithms. Each panel shows three metrics: the photo-𝑧 bias E[Δ𝑧], scatter 𝜎NMAD, and outlier rate 𝜂0.15. The grey shaded regions show the LSST Y1 and Y10 requi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The PIT-QQ plot for eight photo-𝑧 estimators. The curves show the empirical CDF of {𝑧𝑖 } as a function of 𝑄, i.e., 𝑃 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The same photometric redshift performance metrics as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparisons of stacked redshift distributions estimated by each photo-𝑧 algorithm with the true redshift distributions for the ECDFS test set (left panels) and the independent DESI cross-match in the SV_38_7 field (right panels). Each panel shows, for one algorithm, th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Infrared-enhanced Photometric Redshifts for the Dark Energy Survey Y6 Gold catalogue

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    DES+WISE W1/W2 photometry significantly reduces photo-z scatter, bias and outliers versus optical-only DES, while VHS adds only marginal gains at z<1.5.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab04fa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872L..30A 872, L30

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab04fa 2019

  2. [2]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105b3520A 105, 023520

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520 2022

  3. [3]

    A., Jarvis M

    Almosallam I. A., Jarvis M. J., Roberts S. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..726A 462, 726

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1618 2016

  4. [4]

    Arnouts S., Cristiani S., Moscardini L., Matarrese S., Lucchin F., Fontana A., Giallongo E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02978.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.310..540A 310, 540

    arXiv 1999

  5. [6]

    Balestra I., et al., 2010b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...512A..12B 512, A12

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913626

  6. [7]

    Ben \' tez N., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536..571B 536, 571

    doi:10.1086/308947 2000

  7. [8]

    Blake C., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.4240B 462, 4240

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1990 2016

  8. [9]

    Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.344.1000B 344, 1000

    arXiv 2003

Show all 86 references
  1. [10]

    arXiv:2501.02103

    Caplar N., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.02103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250102103C p. arXiv:2501.02103

    2025 doi

  2. [11]

    J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.1483C 432, 1483

    Carrasco Kind M., Brunner R. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.1483C 432, 1483

    2013 doi

  3. [12]

    NSF-DOE Vera C

    Charles E., et al., 2025, Commissioning Technical Note SITCOMTN-154, Initial studies of photometric redshifts with LSSTComCam from DP1 , https://sitcomtn-154.lsst.io/ . NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory , @doi 10.71929/rubin/2571480 , https://sitcomtn-154.lsst.io/

    2025

  4. [13]

    F., Jee M., Bouwens R., Ford H., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132..926C 132, 926

    Coe D., Ben \' tez N., S \'a nchez S. F., Jee M., Bouwens R., Ford H., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132..926C 132, 926

    2006 doi

  5. [14]

    Collaboration D., et al., 2025, Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument ( @eprint arXiv 2503.14745 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14745

    2025 arXiv

  6. [16]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767..118C 767, 118

    Cool R. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767..118C 767, 118

    2013 doi

  7. [18]

    M., Smith R

    Croom S. M., Smith R. J., Boyle B. J., Shanks T., Loaring N. S., Miller L., Lewis I. J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04474.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322L..29C 322, L29

    2001

  8. [19]

    E., Huterer D., Busha M

    Cunha C. E., Huterer D., Busha M. T., Wechsler R. H., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20927.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423..909C 423, 909

    2012

  9. [20]

    arXiv:2503.14745

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314745D p. arXiv:2503.14745

    2025 doi arXiv

  10. [21]

    D'Eugenio F., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ada148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJS..277....4D 277, 4

    2025 doi

  11. [22]

    Daddi E., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...600L.127D 600, L127

    2004 doi

  12. [23]

    De Vicente J., S \'a nchez E., Sevilla-Noarbe I., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw857 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.3078D 459, 3078

    2016 doi

  13. [24]

    J., Ellis R

    Doherty M., Bunker A. J., Ellis R. S., McCarthy P. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09191.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.361..525D 361, 525

    2005

  14. [25]

    arXiv:2503.15302

    Euclid Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250315302E p. arXiv:2503.15302

    2025 doi arXiv

  15. [26]

    Garilli B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.150G 647, A150

    2021 doi

  16. [27]

    Giavalisco M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.121301.111837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ARA&A..40..579G 40, 579

    2002

  17. [28]

    L., Connolly A

    Graham M. L., Connolly A. J., Ivezi \'c Z ., Schmidt S. J., Jones R. L., Juri \'c M., Daniel S. F., Yoachim P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa99d4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155....1G 155, 1

    2018 doi

  18. [29]

    L., Bosch J., Guy L

    Graham M. L., Bosch J., Guy L. P., The DM System Science Team. 2022, Data Management Technical Note DMTN-049, A Roadmap to Photometric Redshifts for the LSST Object Catalog , https://dmtn-049.lsst.io/ . NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory , https://dmtn-049.lsst.io/

    2022

  19. [30]

    Grazian A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...449..951G 449, 951

    2006 doi

  20. [31]

    P., Malhotra S., Rhoads J

    Hathi N. P., Malhotra S., Rhoads J. E., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/524836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...673..686H 673, 686

    2008 doi

  21. [32]

    F., Schmitz M., Bicay M

    Helou G., Madore B. F., Schmitz M., Bicay M. D., Wu X., Bennett J., 1991, in Albrecht M. A., Egret D., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 171, Databases and On-line Data in Astronomy. pp 89--106, @doi 10.1007/978-94-011-3250-3_10

    1991 doi

  22. [33]

    P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..199...26H 199, 26

    Huchra J. P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..199...26H 199, 26

    2012 doi

  23. [34]

    Ilbert O., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...690.1236I 690, 1236

    2009 doi

  24. [35]

    Ilbert O., Cohen-Tanugi J., Shirley R., Arnouts S., Salvato M., 2024, LePHARE : PHotometric Analysis for Redshift Estimation, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.14162574 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14162574

    2024 doi

  25. [36]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..111I 873, 111

    2019 doi

  26. [37]

    B., 2017, @doi [Electronic Journal of Statistics] 10.1214/17-EJS1302 , 11, 2800

    Izbicki R., Lee A. B., 2017, @doi [Electronic Journal of Statistics] 10.1214/17-EJS1302 , 11, 2800

    2017 doi

  27. [38]

    H., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15338.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399..683J 399, 683

    Jones D. H., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15338.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399..683J 399, 683

    2009

  28. [39]

    Kilbinger M., 2015, @doi [Rept. Prog. Phys.] 10.1088/0034-4885/78/8/086901 , 78, 086901

    2015 doi

  29. [40]

    Kodra D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9f12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...36K 942, 36

    2023 doi

  30. [41]

    Kriek M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669..776K 669, 776

    2007 doi

  31. [43]

    Kriek M., et al., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..218...15K 218, 15

    doi

  32. [44]

    G., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJS...43..305K 43, 305

    Kron R. G., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJS...43..305K 43, 305

    1980 doi

  33. [45]

    Le F \`e vre O., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20048072 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...428.1043L 428, 1043

    2004 doi

  34. [46]

    arXiv:1307.0545

    Le Fevre O., et al., 2013a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1307.0545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1307.0545L p. arXiv:1307.0545

    doi arXiv

  35. [47]

    Le F \`e vre O., et al., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A..14L 559, A14

    doi

  36. [48]

    Le F \`e vre O., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...576A..79L 576, A79

    2015 doi

  37. [49]

    Lidman C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496...19L 496, 19

    2020 doi

  38. [50]

    Malhotra S., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...626..666M 626, 666

    2005 doi

  39. [51]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479...25M 479, 25

    McLure R. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479...25M 479, 25

    2018 doi

  40. [52]

    Merlin E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A..22M 649, A22

    2021 doi

  41. [53]

    Merlin E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451409 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A.240M 691, A240

    2024 doi

  42. [54]

    Mignoli M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042434 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...437..883M 437, 883

    2005 doi

  43. [56]

    G., et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...27M 225, 27

    Momcheva I. G., et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...27M 225, 27

    doi

  44. [57]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149..178M 149, 178

    Morris A. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/6/178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149..178M 149, 178

    2015 doi

  45. [58]

    NSF-DOE Vera C.\ Rubin Observatory 2025a, Legacy Survey of Space and Time Data Preview 1 [Data set] , @doi 10.71929/RUBIN/2570308 , https://www.osti.gov//servlets/purl/2570308

  46. [59]

    NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory 2025b, Legacy Survey of Space and Time Data Preview 1: deep\_coadd dataset type [Data set] , @doi 10.71929/RUBIN/2570313 , https://www.osti.gov//servlets/purl/2570313

  47. [60]

    Rubin Observatory 2025c, Technical Note RTN-095, The Vera C

    NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory 2025c, Technical Note RTN-095, The Vera C. Rubin Observatory Data Preview 1 , https://rtn-095.lsst.io/ . NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory , @doi 10.71929/rubin/2570536 , https://rtn-095.lsst.io/

  48. [61]

    A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589982 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...684...88N 684, 88

    Newman J. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589982 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...684...88N 684, 88

    2008 doi

  49. [62]

    A., Gruen D., 2022, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics

    Newman J. A., Gruen D., 2022, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics

    2022

  50. [63]

    C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...507.1793N 507, 1793

    Noll S., Burgarella D., Giovannoli E., Buat V., Marcillac D., Mu \ n oz-Mateos J. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...507.1793N 507, 1793

    2009 doi

  51. [64]

    Norman C., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/339855 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...571..218N 571, 218

    2002 doi

  52. [65]

    Pasquali A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...636..115P 636, 115

    2006 doi

  53. [66]

    Pentericci L., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A.174P 616, A174

    doi

  54. [67]

    Pentericci L., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...619A.147P 619, A147

    doi

  55. [68]

    Polletta M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663...81P 663, 81

    2007 doi

  56. [69]

    Popesso P., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...494..443P 494, 443

    2009 doi

  57. [70]

    D., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...465.1099R 465, 1099

    Ravikumar C. D., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...465.1099R 465, 1099

    2007 doi

  58. [71]

    E., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/942 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697..942R 697, 942

    Rhoads J. E., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/942 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697..942R 697, 942

    2009 doi

  59. [72]

    Rubin Observatory 2024, LSST Commissioning Camera, @doi 10.71929/RUBIN/2561361 , https://www.osti.gov//servlets/purl/2561361

    SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory NSF-DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory 2024, LSST Commissioning Camera, @doi 10.71929/RUBIN/2561361 , https://www.osti.gov//servlets/purl/2561361

    2024

  60. [73]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  61. [74]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859..101S 859, 101

    Scolnic D. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859..101S 859, 101

    2018 doi

  62. [75]

    D., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/191/1/124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..191..124S 191, 124

    Silverman J. D., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/191/1/124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..191..124S 191, 124

    2010 doi

  63. [76]

    N., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135.1624S 135, 1624

    Straughn A. N., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135.1624S 135, 1624

    2008 doi

  64. [77]

    N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/138/4/1022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....138.1022S 138, 1022

    Straughn A. N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/138/4/1022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....138.1022S 138, 1022

    2009 doi

  65. [78]

    P., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..155..271S 155, 271

    Szokoly G. P., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..155..271S 155, 271

    2004 doi

  66. [79]

    Tasca L. A. M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...600A.110T 600, A110

    2017 doi

  67. [80]

    arXiv:1809.01669

    The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1809.01669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180901669T p. arXiv:1809.01669

    2018 doi arXiv

  68. [81]

    arXiv:2505.02928

    The RAIL Team et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250502928T p. arXiv:2505.02928

    2025 doi

  69. [82]

    N., Saigo K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763....6T 763, 6

    Tomida K., Tomisaka K., Matsumoto T., Hori Y., Okuzumi S., Machida M. N., Saigo K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763....6T 763, 6

    2013 doi

  70. [83]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811...26T 811, 26

    Trump J. R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/811/1/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...811...26T 811, 26

    2015 doi

  71. [84]

    Van Waerbeke L., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...358...30V 358, 30

    2000 doi arXiv

  72. [85]

    Vanzella E., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...478...83V 478, 83

    2008 doi

  73. [86]

    Vanzella E., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...695.1163V 695, 1163

    2009 doi

  74. [87]

    Wolf C., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..913W 421, 913

    2004 doi

  75. [88]

    M., Franx M., Rudnick G., Brammer G

    Wuyts S., Labb \'e I., F \"o rster Schreiber N. M., Franx M., Rudnick G., Brammer G. B., van Dokkum P. G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588749 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682..985W 682, 985

    2008 doi

  76. [89]

    G., Franx M., F \"o rster Schreiber N

    Wuyts S., van Dokkum P. G., Franx M., F \"o rster Schreiber N. M., Illingworth G. D., Labb \'e I., Rudnick G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/885 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...706..885W 706, 885

    2009 doi

  77. [90]

    G., Rix H

    van der Wel A., Franx M., van Dokkum P. G., Rix H. W., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381887 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601L...5V 601, L5

    2004 doi

  78. [91]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.