Abstract:We present a comparison between Gaussian processes (GPs) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) as methods for determining photometric redshifts for galaxies, given training-set data. In particular, we compare their degradation in performance as the training-set size is degraded in ways which might be caused by the observational limitations of spectroscopy. Using publicly available regression codes, we find that performance with large, complete training sets is very similar, although the ANN achieves slightly smaller rms errors. Training sets with brighter magnitude limits than the test data do not strongly affect the performance of either algorithm, until the limits are so severe that they remove almost all of the high-redshift training objects. Similarly, the introduction of a plausible number (up to 10 per cent) of inaccurate redshifts into the training set has little effect on either method. However, if the size of the training set is reduced by random sampling, the rms errors of both methods increase, but they do so to a lesser extent and in a much smoother manner for the case of GP regression; for the example presented ANNZ has rms errors similar to 20 per cent worse than GP regression in the small training-set limit. Also, when training objects are removed at redshifts 1.3 < z < 1.7, to simulate the effects of the 'redshift desert' of optical spectroscopy, the GP regression is successful at interpolating across the redshift gap, while the ANN suffers from strong bias for test objects in this redshift range. Overall, GP regression has attractive properties for photometric redshift estimation, particularly for deep, high-redshift surveys where it is difficult to obtain a large, complete training set. At present, unlike the ANN code, public GP regression codes do not take account of inhomogeneous measurement errors on the photometric data, and thus cannot estimate reliable uncertainties on the predicted redshifts. However, a better treatment of errors is in principle possible, and the promising results in this paper suggest that such improved GP algorithms should be pursued.

Galaxy Classification by Human Eyes and by Artificial Neural Networks

Artificial Neural Networks as a Tool for Galaxy Classification

Neural computation as a tool for galaxy classification : methods and examples

Galaxy Classification: A machine learning approach for classifying shapes using numerical data

Galaxy detection and identification using deep learning and data augmentation

Galaxy Zoo: Reproducing Galaxy Morphologies Via Machine Learning

Automated Galaxy Morphology: A Fourier Approach

Automating galaxy morphology classification using K nearest neighbors and non-parametric statistics

AutoSourceID-Classifier. Star-Galaxy Classification using a Convolutional Neural Network with Spatial Information

Morphological Classification of Galaxies Using SpinalNet

Unveiling Galaxy Morphology through an Unsupervised-Supervised Hybrid Approach

Galaxy Classification Using Transfer Learning and Ensemble of CNNs With Multiple Colour Spaces

Galaxies in the zone of avoidance: Misclassifications using machine learning tools

Exploring the Morphologies of High Redshift Galaxies with Machine Learning

Rotation-invariant convolutional neural networks for galaxy morphology prediction

Quantifying Non-parametric Structure of High-redshift Galaxies with Deep Learning

Star/Galaxy Separation Revisited : Into the Zone of Avoidance

First Impressions: Early-Time Classification of Supernovae using Host Galaxy Information and Shallow Learning

Galaxy morphology - an unsupervised machine learning approach

Photometric Redshift Estimation Using Gaussian Processes