Sparse representation of photometric redshift probability density functions: preparing for petascale astronomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the consequences of entering the era of precision cosmology is the widespread adoption of photometric redshift probability density functions (PDFs). Both current and future photometric surveys are expected to obtain images of billions of distinct galaxies. As a result, storing and analysing all of these PDFs will be non-trivial and even more severe if a survey plans to compute and store multiple different PDFs. In this paper we propose the use of a sparse basis representation to fully represent individual photo-z PDFs. By using an orthogonal matching pursuit algorithm and a combination of Gaussian and Voigt basis functions, we demonstrate how our approach is superior to a multi-Gaussian fitting, as we require approximately half of the parameters for the same fitting accuracy with the additional advantage that an entire PDF can be stored by using a 4-byte integer per basis function, and we can achieve better accuracy by increasing the number of bases. By using data from the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey, we demonstrate that only 10–20 points per galaxy are sufficient to reconstruct both the individual PDFs and the ensemble redshift distribution, N(z), to an accuracy of 99.9 per cent when compared to the one built using the original PDFs computed with a resolution of δz = 0.01, reducing the required storage of 200 original values by a factor of 10–20. Finally, we demonstrate how this basis representation can be directly extended to a cosmological analysis, thereby increasing computational performance without losing resolution nor accuracy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".