Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

emission line galaxies for LSS group #31

Closed
rmandelb opened this issue Nov 6, 2017 · 47 comments
Closed

emission line galaxies for LSS group #31

rmandelb opened this issue Nov 6, 2017 · 47 comments

Comments

@rmandelb
Copy link
Contributor

rmandelb commented Nov 6, 2017

@damonge and @slosar - one of the LSS group's requests for DC2 was the inclusion of emission line galaxies. Can you please clarify: was this request for the image simulations (300 deg^2) or the larger-area extragalactic catalogs (~5000 deg^2), and how important is the request?

Currently, the photo-z group is planning to add emission lines to SEDs in the extragalactic catalogs, but not on a time-scale that would enable their inclusion in the image simulations. Are you able to work with their outputs in the extragalactic catalog, or did you have something else in mind?

@egawiser
Copy link

egawiser commented Nov 6, 2017

I think this request percolated up from me originally... Adam Broussard (Rutgers grad student) and I want to study which subsets of our detected galaxies have significantly better photo-z due to strong emission lines that noticeably affect photometry in 1 or more broad-band filters, which could make them a "platinum sample" for clustering analysis. So that's completely doable at the catalog level as long as photo-z's are being calculated (seemingly so :) ) and the input EL galaxies have a distribution of line strengths that includes a tail out to very high Equivalent Width. Eventually we should figure out how much actually observing such galaxies degrades their photo-z's, but that could comfortably be done via image simulations in DC3.

@rmandelb
Copy link
Contributor Author

rmandelb commented Nov 6, 2017

@egawiser - very good, now I know who to blame. ;)

So I'm hearing a "yes" to "catalog-level analysis". Perhaps @janewman-pitt-edu can comment on whether the emission line-adding code (in whatever form will be applied later on to the DC2 extragalactic sims) will have a distribution of line strengths with a tail to very high equivalent width?

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

evevkovacs commented Nov 6, 2017 via email

@rmandelb
Copy link
Contributor Author

rmandelb commented Nov 6, 2017

OK, so then I guess the same question applies to the galacticus model for ELGs: does their model go to very high equivalent width?

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

evevkovacs commented Nov 6, 2017 via email

@egawiser egawiser self-assigned this Nov 6, 2017
@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

evevkovacs commented Nov 6, 2017 via email

@egawiser
Copy link

egawiser commented Nov 6, 2017

OK we'll take a look. What's the needed timetable for developing a validation test? (I would envision a K-S test on the Equivalent Width distributions in H alpha and [O III] at z<1 versus what's known from observations, although for our current purposes all that's needed is to have some galaxies with very high EWs rather than the right proportion of those.) And who should we bug when we inevitably need help figuring out how to determine EWs from the proto-DC2 catalog format?

@yymao
Copy link
Member

yymao commented Nov 6, 2017

added to #30.

BTW, @evevkovacs, is the full SED already exposed in the reader?

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

No, right now, the user would have to add the quantities. A feature that I mentioned last week at our telecon would be the ability to fetch all quantities matching a string (eg. SED). WE can add this to our reader, but it might be more generally useful.

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

@egawiser Bug me if you have problems.

@yymao
Copy link
Member

yymao commented Nov 6, 2017

@evevkovacs the reader can already fetch all quantities matching a string ---

gc.get_quantities([q for q in gc.list_all_quantities(True) if q.startswith('SED')])

We can add a syntax candy for this but I don't think it is critical.

I am more worried about the data format of SEDs, because the reader does assume that each quantity is a 1D array (i.e., a scalar for each galaxy). How are the SEDs stored in the catalogs? If this discussion should not happen here, we can discuss by email or at #desc-qa.

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

evevkovacs commented Nov 6, 2017 via email

@yymao
Copy link
Member

yymao commented Nov 6, 2017

@evevkovacs OK, since the SED are stored in scalar fields we are good for now.

Making GCR to have good support to vector quantities require some more work. Since the user can always create the vector after grabbing the scalar quantities, I'll just leave it at that.

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

evevkovacs commented Nov 6, 2017 via email

@egawiser
Copy link

egawiser commented Nov 6, 2017

How narrow are the narrow-band "filters" used to store the SEDs? That's probably not bad for now, but if they're typical narrow-band filters with width ~50 Angstroms, the loss of emission-line information will hurt what we're trying to measure from DC2 catalogs. If they're <= 5 Angstroms, otoh, it should work ok.

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

evevkovacs commented Nov 6, 2017 via email

@egawiser
Copy link

egawiser commented Nov 6, 2017

Hmm... at first glance that will make the DC2 emission-line galaxies much less useful for the LSS project we're working on (though presumably fine for photo-z as originally intended). Hopefully we can fix this for the larger-area catalog-only DC2 simulation though. Let me double-check: I assume that galaxy SEDs are initially simulated at higher wavelength resolution via something like adding an emission-line template to a Bruzual-Charlot model for continuum with absorption lines, then their SEDs are stored in the 30 tophat filters you just described, and then their ugrizy photometry is predicted from those 30 filters. Is that right? If that's right, we can still look at one of the two kinds of effects we're interested in using DC2. Both effects produce improved photo-z precision, but the second one relies upon the very narrow nature of the emission lines. If the ugrizy photometry is predicted from full-resolution SEDs directly and the 30 filters are just for storing the SEDs after that, we might still make progress on both.

@janewman-pitt-edu
Copy link

@egawiser : those filters should NOT contain emission line flux, but rather only continuum. It turns out that in SDSS you can predict the lines from the continuum with (in many cases) lower errors than measuring the lines from the spectra. Hence we need the continuum fluxes to run the afterburner to paste on emission lines. Galacticus emission line predictions should be separate.

For a validation test, I'd suggest looking at [OII] equivalent width vs. restframe color, as this is reasonably tight and well-constrained by DEEP2. We generally won't have coverage of [OIII] in spectra from z~1...

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

@egawiser NO, the Galacticus SED filters are continuum filters. ELGs are added in post processing, based on fluxes in 3 (continuum) H, He and O filters. Apparently, these 3 filters predict emission line strengths with good accuracy. The post processing model gives only line luminosities. I will check the code developers for more details.

@egawiser
Copy link

egawiser commented Nov 6, 2017

Aha - thanks to both of you for the explanation. It will be helpful to explain at the outset that the stored SEDs are "continuum-only" to prevent others from making the same assumption that I did that ELG SEDs include emission lines... ;) but this makes a lot more sense. At some point of course we'll want to stop assuming that the magic "emission line from continuum" prediction that works for SDSS will work at LSST depth and redshift, but it should be fine for DC2 in general. I don't know if it will generate enough very high EW galaxies for the specific LSS project, but we'll check. One further question - was the post-processing run already for the proto-DC2 catalogs? We should be able to handle combined info on SEDs and line luminosities (even better continuum-only ugrizy photometry and line luminosities).

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

evevkovacs commented Nov 6, 2017 via email

@janewman-pitt-edu
Copy link

The assumption that continuum->line mapping is the same as SDSS has to break down eventually, i agree, but at least assures we match things at low redshift and that line ratios are physical (and I'd rather be underpredicting than overpredicting at high z). We'll see how Galacticus does...

@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

cwwalter commented Nov 7, 2017

@janewman-pitt-edu Is there a reference on predicting the emission lines from continuum? @evevkovacs said " ELGs are added in post processing, based on fluxes in 3 (continuum) H, He and O filters" I'm curious what those filters look like since (for example) the hydrogen alpha and beta lines are pretty far apart.

@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

cwwalter commented Nov 7, 2017

The DC1 data had 318 bins from 904AA to 20,069 AA, with linearly increasing bin-size in lambda. For DC2, I think we want something similar, but we do want to concentrate on the area around the 4000 AA break and spanning the optical with a bit more resolution.

In the current scheme, do I understand correctly you have gone from 318 to 30 bins for the continuum? Also, generically, is there a reason to represent the SEDs this way rather than say a PCA based on SED templates?

Thanks!

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

evevkovacs commented Nov 7, 2017

The reference is (also see the protoDC2 document); Panuzzo, P., Bressan, A., Granato, G. L., Silva, L., Danese, L., 2003, RMxAC, 17, 89P.
Yes, we reduced from 318 to 30 because calculating many filters in Galacticus is expensive. The PZ group felt that about 30 filters would be enough for their estimates. Galacticus calculates the filter luminosities directly based on the star-formation history, SPS codes and the filter transmission function. It doesn't use SED templates.

@katrinheitmann katrinheitmann added this to the DC2 CS Freeze milestone Nov 8, 2017
@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

cwwalter commented Nov 8, 2017

The reference is (also see the protoDC2 document); Panuzzo, P., Bressan, A., Granato, G. L., Silva, L., Danese, L., 2003, RMxAC, 17, 89P.

Thanks Eve! Is it this: http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/rmaa/RMxAC..17/PDF/RMxAC..17_ppanuzzo.pdf ?

I can't quite tell if this one page conference proceedings is explaining how to do the modeling, or if this is the actual observation of the correlation between the continuum and the lines. @janewman-pitt-edu do you have a comment?

@rmandelb
Copy link
Contributor Author

rmandelb commented Nov 8, 2017

All: what I've gotten out of this discussion is that:

  • we want to have a validation test of the emission lines in the catalog-level sims
  • the emission line selection is definitely not relevant to image sims

Is that a good summary? Should I add this to the list of validation tests in the validation epic, update the DC2 plan to reflect these conclusions, and close this issue - or do we have more to do here?

@yymao
Copy link
Member

yymao commented Nov 8, 2017

We've opened an issue at LSSTDESC/descqa#12 but need some people to volunteer to work on this.

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

@cwwalter The conference note is describing the model implementation (ie creating a big lookup table for emission-line strengths based on galaxy properties such as metallicity etc) I pinged Andrew Benson regarding a reference for the observation that line strengths can be well reconstructed from the 3 continuum filters (plus the metallicity and density of the HII regions)
Here it is:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...409...99P
I will add this information to the protoDC2 note.

@katrinheitmann
Copy link
Contributor

katrinheitmann commented Nov 8, 2017 via email

@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

cwwalter commented Nov 9, 2017

Here it is:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...409...99P

Thanks!

@janewman-pitt-edu
Copy link

For the afterburner based on continuum, it's an improved version of https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.02417 . A PCA representation of the spectra is fine for this but I don't think that's what's easy to provide from Galacticus?

@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

cwwalter commented Nov 9, 2017

For the afterburner based on continuum, it's an improved version of https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.02417

Great, thanks!

@rmandelb
Copy link
Contributor Author

@katrinheitmann - I see Yao added this already to the proto-DC2 validation epic here, and to the list in the descqa repo. So I am closing this issue and updating our wish list to reflect this decision.

@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

Hi All,

This issue is closed but I just wanted to check on something: I know these ELGs are not going to be in the image SEDs and we can add lines based on the continuum re: the papers above. But I am a bit unclear on the mechanics of how these checks will work for the catalog only work.

Will the GCR return them with an option turned on so the PZ group can use them but not when they are interfacing with CatSim?

Thanks!

@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

(BTW: The thing that got me thinking about this was wondering if we should include this as a feature in table 1. of the executive summary of the planning document).

@yymao
Copy link
Member

yymao commented Dec 13, 2017

I guess we can save two sets of SEDs, one with and one without the ELGs? @evevkovacs?

@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

Currently the table says "emission-line strengths are computed in post- processing."

@yymao
Copy link
Member

yymao commented Dec 13, 2017

I believe post-processing is that sentence is still before the step when the protoDC2 extragalactic catalog is written to disk.

@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

Right exactly what this means is what I am confused about / trying to understand...

@yymao
Copy link
Member

yymao commented Dec 13, 2017

@evevkovacs should chime in but I think it means that after galaxies are painted by the SAM, they then add emission-line strengths, and then save everything as a file to disk.

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

@cwwalter @yao Yao is correct. The emission lines are added in post processing after the Galacticus simulation and the information is available in the protoDC2 catalog. See here for a list of the native quantities available in the catalog.

@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

OK thanks. This is the same catalog that CatSim uses but it just doesn't use those variables?

@yymao
Copy link
Member

yymao commented Dec 13, 2017

@cwwalter yes, I think so

@evevkovacs
Copy link
Contributor

@danielsf Scott should confirm, but as far as I know, CatSim does not use the ELG information as yet. CatSim may expect that information to be included in with the SED, in which case, there may be additional work to be done here. Scott wrote a module to take the SED information supplied by Galacticus and fit it to CatSim's SED template library. Including ELG information in that fit may be a refinement on that which will be needed in the future.

@danielsf
Copy link
Contributor

The CatSim SED library to which we are fitting does not have emission lines, so I'm not sure how to incorporate ELG parameters and ultimately pass them to PhoSim (recall that PhoSim expects there to be file on disk representing the (wavelength, flux) grid of the SED for each source).

@cwwalter
Copy link
Member

That's OK. We aren't planning on doing this for the image simulations now. This ELG studies will be catalog only. I just wanted to know how that would work.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants