2017
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731762
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating photometric redshifts for X-ray sources in the X-ATLAS field using machine-learning techniques

Abstract: We present photometric redshifts for 1031 X-ray sources in the X-ATLAS field using the machine-learning technique TPZ. X-ATLAS covers 7.1 deg 2 observed with XMM-Newton within the Science Demonstration Phase of the H-ATLAS field, making it one of the largest contiguous areas of the sky with both XMM-Newton and Herschel coverage. All of the sources have available SDSS photometry, while 810 additionally have mid-IR and/or near-IR photometry. A spectroscopic sample of 5157 sources primarily in the XMM/XXL field, … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is taken into account when computing photo-z via SED-fitting by adopting a prior in absolute magnitude (e.g., Salvato et al 2009Salvato et al , 2011Fotopoulou et al 2012;Hsu et al 2014, A17). More recently, the separation of the sources in these two subgroups is becoming the standard also when computing photo-z via ML (e.g., Mountrichas et al 2017;Ruiz et al 2018). One limitation of this method is that it relies on images that are affected by the quality of the seeing, which can alter the morphological classification of the sources.…”
Section: Point-like Vs Extendedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is taken into account when computing photo-z via SED-fitting by adopting a prior in absolute magnitude (e.g., Salvato et al 2009Salvato et al , 2011Fotopoulou et al 2012;Hsu et al 2014, A17). More recently, the separation of the sources in these two subgroups is becoming the standard also when computing photo-z via ML (e.g., Mountrichas et al 2017;Ruiz et al 2018). One limitation of this method is that it relies on images that are affected by the quality of the seeing, which can alter the morphological classification of the sources.…”
Section: Point-like Vs Extendedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used the training sample presented in Mountrichas et al (2017) for the sources in the ARCHES catalogue (SDSS training sample). This sample contains sources from XXL (Menzel et al 2016), XWAS (Esquej et al 2013), COSMOS (Brusa et al 2010), XMS (Barcons et al 2007) and XBS (Della Ceca et al 2004), all of them X-rays surveys with a high level of spectroscopic identification.…”
Section: Training Samplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, it also contains 1500 SDSS-DR13 sources spectroscopically identified as QSO with X-ray counterparts. Even though these QSO are optically selected instead of X-ray selected, adding them does not bias our photoz derivation significantly (Mountrichas et al 2017). The final training sample is composed of 5157 objects with SDSS photometric data, 3129 with also NIR data (UKIDSS or 2MASS) and 4718 with MIR data (AllWISE).…”
Section: Training Samplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations