The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS). Never mind the gaps: comparing techniques to restore homogeneous sky coverage

[Abridged] Non-uniform sampling and gaps in sky coverage are common in galaxy redshift surveys, but these effects can degrade galaxy counts-in-cells and density estimates. We carry out a comparison of methods that aim to fill the gaps to correct for the systematic effects. Our study is motivated by the analysis of the VIMOS Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS), a flux-limited survey (i<22.5) based on one-pass observations with VIMOS, with gaps covering 25% of the surveyed area and a mean sampling rate of 35%. Our findings are applicable to other surveys with similar observing strategies. We compare 1) two algorithms based on photometric redshift, that assign redshifts to galaxies based on the spectroscopic redshifts of the nearest neighbours, 2) two Bayesian methods, the Wiener filter and the Poisson-Lognormal filter. Using galaxy mock catalogues we quantify the accuracy of the counts-in-cells measurements on scales of R=5 and 8 Mpc/h after applying each of these methods. We also study how they perform to account for spectroscopic redshift error and inhomogeneous and sparse sampling rate. We find that in VIPERS the errors in counts-in-cells measurements on R<10 Mpc/h scales are dominated by the sparseness of the sample. All methods underpredict by 20-35% the counts at high densities. This systematic bias is of the same order as random errors. No method outperforms the others. Random and systematic errors decrease for larger cells. We show that it is possible to separate the lowest and highest densities on scales of 5 Mpc/h at redshifts 0.5

Keywords:

• Redshift
• Sky
• Cosmic variance
• Astrophysics
• Wiener filter
• Redshift survey
• Photometric redshift
• Physics
• Sampling (statistics)
• Galaxy

• Correction
• Source
• Cite
• Save
• Machine Reading By IdeaReader