<i>Euclid</i>: Testing photometric selection of emission-line galaxy targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-object spectroscopic galaxy surveys typically make use of photometric and colour criteria to select their targets. That is not the case of Euclid , which will use the NISP slitless spectrograph to record spectra for every source over its field of view. Slitless spectroscopy has the advantage of avoiding defining a priori a specific galaxy sample, but at the price of making the selection function harder to quantify. In its Wide Survey, Euclid was designed to build robust statistical samples of emission-line galaxies with fluxes brighter than 2 × 10 −16 erg s −1 cm −2 , using the H α -[N II ] complex to measure redshifts within the range [0.9, 1.8]. Given the expected signal-to-noise ratio of NISP spectra, at such faint fluxes a significant contamination by incorrectly measured redshifts is expected, either due to misidentification of other emission lines, or to noise fluctuations mistaken as such, with the consequence of reducing the purity of the final samples. This can be significantly ameliorated by exploiting the extensive Euclid photometric information to identify emission-line galaxies over the redshift range of interest. Beyond classical multi-band selections in colour space, machine learning techniques provide novel tools to perform this task. Here, we compare and quantify the performance of six such classification algorithms in achieving this goal. We consider the case when only the Euclid photometric and morphological measurements are used, and when these are supplemented by the extensive set of ancillary ground-based photometric data, which are part of the overall Euclid scientific strategy to perform lensing tomography. The classifiers are trained and tested on two mock galaxy samples, the EL-COSMOS and Euclid Flagship2 catalogues. The best performance is obtained from either a dense neural network or a support vector classifier, with comparable results in terms of the adopted metrics. When training on Euclid on-board photometry alone, these are able to remove 87% of the sources that are fainter than the nominal flux limit or lie outside the 0.9 < z < 1.8 redshift range, a figure that increases to 97% when ground-based photometry is included. These results show how by using the photometric information available to Euclid it will be possible to efficiently identify and discard spurious interlopers, allowing us to build robust spectroscopic samples for cosmological investigations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".