1 / 24

Evaluation of 6dF Data

Evaluation of 6dF Data. Lesa Moore Macquarie University Honours Project 2003 Supervisor: Quentin Parker MU/AAO. Goals of Honours Project. Independent evaluation of results from 6dFDR and RUNZ Comparison analysis using IRAF dofibers, line measurements, xcsao and emsao

landis
Download Presentation

Evaluation of 6dF Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Evaluation of 6dF Data Lesa Moore Macquarie University Honours Project 2003 Supervisor: Quentin Parker MU/AAO

  2. Goals of Honours Project • Independent evaluation of results from 6dFDR and RUNZ • Comparison analysis using IRAF dofibers, line measurements, xcsao and emsao • Test 6dFDR and RUNZ for accuracy and systematic errors by comparison with IRAF results • Test 6dFDR and RUNZ for repeatability • Report to survey team with results and recommendations

  3. Target and Observed Fields One field studied to date My first field!!

  4. Field Details • 0924m30 • Observed 20/3/2002 • Reflection gratings 600V: 4000-5600Å; 316R: 5500-8500Å • 109 spectra, 28 parked fibres, 13 skies

  5. Batch-Mode Reduction • 6dFDR, RUNZ on separate V, R and spliced VR data using 6dFDR arc-line lists (see later!) • IRAF dofibers on V, R data using my own arc-line lists (NIST Atomic Spectra Database:http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/AtData/lines_form) • IRAF xcsao on R grating data only • No heliocentric correction applied (raw redshifts only)

  6. Comparison Spectra - 1 IRAF data not flux-calibrated

  7. Comparison Spectra - 2 IRAF data not flux-calibrated

  8. Signal-to-noise comparison(mean for 109 galaxies) Data from: IRAF - measured in splot; RUNZ - 0924Rcom.sdfz.zlog

  9. Problems encountered • Discovered HgCdNe line list has too few Ne, extra Ar and miscellaneous lines • High-dispersion data: only 13 good arc lines in HgCdHe line list: - 6dFDR throws away 3 worst lines - can’t afford this! • Heliocentric correction incorrectly applied, correct on: /net/aaowfi/data1/will/runz/runz6df_may03

  10. Arc spectrum R - HgCdNe

  11. R-arc line-identification compared (subset of 10 fibres) Data from: IRAF – arcapid.t.ms; 6dFDR – arclist006.dat On 108 spectra, mean rms IRAF 0.1816; 6dFDR 0.1539

  12. IRAF 6dFDR • Line lists and matched lines in dispersion functions • Red: neon lines to be added • Blue: 6dfdr desert

  13. Arc spectrum R - HgCdNe

  14. Arc spectrum V - HgCdHe • Not enough lines in high-dispersion data to be used for Dn-s measurements? • Even with extra lines from NIST ASD, still only 16 good lines

  15. IRAF R 57 Agreement: batch x-cor results • V data, R data and VR data compared • Dz ≤ 0.0005 (150 km/s) out of 109 spectra RUNZ R RUNZ V 45 43 69 78 RUNZ VR

  16. RUNZ-VR misidentifications 11/109 V 21/109; R 28/109 z = ~ 0.09

  17. R data: 109 galaxies - r-h plots from both x-correlations- “disagrees” are low S/N spectra Data from: IRAF – xcsao.log; RUNZ – read from display (r writes to log)

  18. Mean uncertainty in x-correlation 109 galaxies Data from: IRAF – xcsao.log; RUNZ – verr from 0924Rcom.sdfz.zlog IRAF uses 12 templates, RUNZ uses 8 templates

  19. X-correlation R data 57 well-matched galaxies Error bars are x-correlation uncertainties

  20. X-correlation R data All 109 galaxies

  21. Line Measurements – 9 galaxies

  22. Summary Results • S/N appears higher in RUNZ than in IRAF • Line lists should be reviewed • 6dFDR should have “retain all lines” option • Update all versions of RUNZ to do heliocentric correction properly • Can’t batch-process – still need to check for misidentifications • Disagreements between methods and gratings on low S/N data not a matter of concern • X-cor uncertainty could be quoted on RUNZ screen display and should be mentioned in online database • May reduce uncertainty by including more templates for RUNZ • Overall z values concur in cases of proper identification • … and keep in mind …

  23. Results from these analyses are preliminary! • Many more fields will be studied • VPH grating data will be compared with reflection grating data • Repeatability of measurements will be tested on repeat observation if possible

  24. Thanks • Anglo-Australian Observatory • Wide-Field Astronomy Unit, Edinburgh • Macquarie University • 6df Galaxy Survey Team (37 members) • Will Saunders, AAO • Quentin Parker, MU/AAO

More Related