4
$\begingroup$

In the context of photometric probe of surveys (like LSST), I need to understand the relation I have to use for photometric bins.

Considering $p_{ph}(z_p|z)$ the probability to measure a photometric redshift equal to $z_p$ knowing the real redshift is $z$ and given $n(z)$ the density distribution of objects, I have the following formula which gives the density $n_i$ of galaxies into $i$-th bin and that I would like to understand :

$$ n_{i}(z)=\frac{\int_{z_{i}^{-}}^{z_{i}^{+}} \mathrm{d} z_{\mathrm{p}}\,n(z)\,p_{\mathrm{ph}}(z_{\mathrm{p}} | z)}{\int_{z_{min}}^{z_{max}} \int_{z_{i}^{-}}^{z_{i}^{+}}\,\mathrm{d} z \,\mathrm{d} z_{\mathrm{p}} \,n(z) \,p_{\mathrm{ph}}(z_{\mathrm{p}} | z)} \quad(1)$$

with $\left(z_{i}^{-}, z_{i}^{+}\right)$ which are the values of both sides (+ and -) of redshift $i$ bin.

Here my attempt to simplify : with Bayes theorem, one has :

$$p_{\mathrm{ph}}(z_{\mathrm{p}} | z) = p_{\mathrm{ph}}(z|z_{\mathrm{p}})\,\dfrac{p_{\mathrm{ph}}(z_{\mathrm{p}})}{p_{\mathrm{ph}}(z)}\quad(2)$$

and Moreover, the bottom term of $(1)$ gives :

$$\int_{z_{min}}^{z_{max}} \int_{z_{i}^{-}}^{z_{i}^{+}}\,\mathrm{d} z \,\mathrm{d} z_{\mathrm{p}} \,n(z) \,p_{\mathrm{ph}}(z_{\mathrm{p}} | z)$$

$$=\int_{z_{i}^{-}}^{z_{i}^{+}}\,n(z)\,p_{\mathrm{ph}}(z_{\mathrm{p}})\,\text{d}z_{\mathrm{p}}\quad(3)$$

So, by combining $(2)$ and $(3)$, we get :

$$ n_{i}(z)=\dfrac{n(z)\,p_{\mathrm{ph}}(z_{\mathrm{p}})}{\int_{z_{i}^{-}}^{z_{i}^{+}}\,n(z)\,p_{\mathrm{ph}}(z_{\mathrm{p}})\,\text{d}z_{\mathrm{p}}}\quad(4)$$

BUT from this $(4)$ I don't know how conclude about the interpretation of this objects density into the redshift of bin $i$.

Surely there is an error in my attempt to simplify the expression $(1$) but I don't where.

If someone could help me to grasp better the subitilities of the relation $(1)$, from a mathematical or physics point of views, this would be nice to explain it.

UPDATE 1:

In particular, I don't agree with Equations (3) and (4). Indeed, using Bayes theorem in the bottom term of Equation (1) leads to

$$ \int_{z_{min}}^{z_{max}} \int_{z_i^-}^{z_i^+} dz dz_p n(z) p_{ph}(z|z_p)\frac{p_{ph}(z_p)}{p_{ph}(z)} $$

But $p_{ph}(z | z_p) dz$ is not equal to $p_{ph}(z)$, so you can't simplify the fraction out, like you do in Equation (3)

In addition, $dz_p n(z) p_{ph} (z_p | z)$ has no reason to be constant, so you can't easily remove the integration sign, like you do in Equation (4).

For equation $(3)$, I wanted to simplify by :

$$\int_{z_{min}}^{z_{max}} \int_{z_{i}^{-}}^{z_{i}^{+}}\,\mathrm{d} z \,\mathrm{d} z_{\mathrm{p}} \,n(z) \,p_{\mathrm{ph}}(z_{\mathrm{p}} | z)= \int_{z_{i}^{-}}^{z_{i}^{+}}\,n(z)\,p_{\mathrm{ph}}(z_{\mathrm{p}})\,\text{d}z_{\mathrm{p}}\quad(5)$$

since we should have : $$p_{ph}(z) = \int_{z_{min}}^{z_{max}} p_{ph}(z | z_p)\,dz_p\quad(6)$$, shouldn't we ?

In comment above, you talk about the relation : $dz_p\,p_{ph} (z_p | z)$, not the equation $(6)$ above, do you agree ?

From an intuitive point of view, I agree that ratio between density $n_i(z)$ and total density $n(z)$ is equal to the ratio between the probability of getting objects of redshift $z_p$ knowing the true redshift $z$ by integrating over $z_p$ and the total density integrated over $z_p$ and $z$.

But as soon as we have to formulate it with mathematics and conditional probabilities, it's more difficult.

Maybe I shoud consider for example the following relation which is the equivalent of Bayes theorem but with density functions (called conditional density) :

$$g\left(x | y_{0}\right)=\frac{f\left(x, y_{0}\right)}{\int f\left(t, y_{0}\right) \mathrm{d} t}\quad(7)$$

But I don't know how to connect this equation $(7)$ with equation $(1)$.

Sorry if I misunderstood : your comment will be precious, that's why I want to clarify this step.

UPDATE 2 :

1)

The numerator of Equation (1) $$ \int_{z_i^-}^{z_i^+} dz_p n(z) p_{ph}(z_p | z) $$ is simply the number of of samples in the $i^{th}$ photometric bin. Indeed, at a given redshift $[z, z+dz]$, there are $n(z).dz$ samples. Each of these samples has a probability $p_{ph}(z_p|z)$ of ending up in the $i^{th}$ bin. So by integrating over $[z_i^-, z_i^+]$, you get the number of samples with true redshift $z$ and a photometric redshift in that bin.

The problem is that, in the numerator of equation $(1)$ :

$$\int_{z_i^-}^{z_i^+} dz_p n(z) p_{ph}\,(z_p | z)$$

we integrate over $z_p$ and not $z$, so we can't consider the number of samples $n(z)\,\text{d}z$ and after say that we compute the probability to be in $i-th$ bin to have $n_i(z)$ samples/density value. Indeed, $\text{dz}$ doesn't appear in the numerator of equation $(1)$.

Do you agree with this issue for me ?

2) I would like to make the connection between what I have put into my UPDATE 1, i.e the conditional density or maybe I should rather express the condditional probability like this :

$$g\left(x | y_{0}\right)=\dfrac{f\left(x, y_{0}\right)}{\int f\left(t, y_{0}\right) \mathrm{d} t}\quad(8)$$

This relation is qualified of "Bayes theorem" for continuous case :

But If I inegrate this expression $(8)$, I get :

$$\int\,g\left(x | y_{0}\right)\,\text{d}y_0=\int\,\dfrac{f\left(x, y_{0}\right)\,\text{d}y_0}{\int f\left(t, y_{0}\right) \mathrm{d} t}\quad\neq\quad P(X|y_0)\quad(9)$$

How to make appear the term $P(X|y_0)$ from equation $(8)$ ?

UPDATE 3: Really no one to explain problematics cited above in my UPDATE 2 and my attempt to simplify the equation $(1)$ at the beginning of my post (with eventual connection with conditional probability in equations $(7$ or $(9)$ ?

Any help/remark/suggestion is welcome

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand how you get (3) $\endgroup$ – usernumber Apr 1 at 10:06
  • $\begingroup$ Nor how you get the numerator in (4) $\endgroup$ – usernumber Apr 1 at 10:11
  • $\begingroup$ @usernumber I got them with Bayes theorem $\endgroup$ – youpilat13 Apr 1 at 10:34
1
+50
$\begingroup$

I don't really understand all the equations you wrote out and I'm not sure you can perform the simplification the way you suggest. In particular, I don't agree with Equations (3) and (4). Indeed, using Bayes theorem in the bottom term of Equation (1) leads to

$$ \int_{z_{min}}^{z_{max}} \int_{z_i^-}^{z_i^+} dz dz_p n(z) p_{ph} (z | z_p)\frac{p_{ph}(z_p)}{p_{ph}(z)} $$

But $p_{ph}(z | z_p) dz$ is not equal to $p_{ph}(z)$, so you can't simplify the fraction out, like you do in Equation (3)

In addition, $dz_p n(z) p_{ph} (z_p | z)$ has no reason to be constant, so you can't easily remove the integration sign, like you do in Equation (4).


But I can try to explain the Equation (1) you are puzzled about.

The numerator of Equation (1) $$ \int_{z_i^-}^{z_i^+} dz_p n(z) p_{ph} (z_p | z) $$ is simply the number of of samples in the $i^{th}$ photometric bin. Indeed, at a given redshift $[z, z+dz]$, there are $n(z).dz$ samples. Each of these samples has a probability $p_{ph}(z_p | z)$ of ending up in the $i^{th}$ bin. So by integrating over $[z_i^-, z_i^+]$, you get the number of samples with true redshift $z$ and a photometric redshift in that bin.

The denominator $$ \int_{z_{min}}^{z_{max}} \int_{z_i^-}^{z_i^+} dz dz_p n(z) p_{ph} (z_p | z) $$ provides a normalization term, by integrating the numerator over all redshifts.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your quick answer. I put an UPDATE 1 to try grasping subtilities of this $n_i(z)$ definition. $\endgroup$ – youpilat13 Apr 1 at 12:19
  • $\begingroup$ could you please take a look at my UPDATE2 since I have not graspped all the subtilities of the definition of $n_i(z)$ ? $\endgroup$ – youpilat13 Apr 3 at 14:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.