  Despite the high accuracy of photometric redshifts (zphot) derived using
Machine Learning (ML) methods, the quantification of errors through reliable
and accurate Probability Density Functions (PDFs) is still an open problem.
First, because it is difficult to accurately assess the contribution from
different sources of errors, namely internal to the method itself and from the
photometric features defining the available parameter space. Second, because
the problem of defining a robust statistical method, always able to quantify
and qualify the PDF estimation validity, is still an open issue. We present a
comparison among PDFs obtained using three different methods on the same data
set: two ML techniques, METAPHOR (Machine-learning Estimation Tool for Accurate
PHOtometric Redshifts) and ANNz2, plus the spectral energy distribution
template fitting method, BPZ. The photometric data were extracted from the KiDS
(Kilo Degree Survey) ESO Data Release 3, while the spectroscopy was obtained
from the GAMA (Galaxy and Mass Assembly) Data Release 2. The statistical
evaluation of both individual and stacked PDFs was done through quantitative
and qualitative estimators, including a dummy PDF, useful to verify whether
different statistical estimators can correctly assess PDF quality. We conclude
that, in order to quantify the reliability and accuracy of any zphot PDF
method, a combined set of statistical estimators is required.
