User Tools

Site Tools


tests:astropars:challenge3

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
tests:astropars:challenge3 [2014/10/31 10:29] randraetests:astropars:challenge3 [2022/10/24 12:26] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 ===== GSP-Phot vs. SICK ===== ===== GSP-Phot vs. SICK =====
 +
 +== Conclusions ==
 +
 +  * GSP-Phot and SICK overall agree very nicely. No algorithm clearly outperforms the other.
 +  * logg: GSP-Phot is slightly better than SICK. SICK may suffer from some convergence problems (red dots below dwarfs).
 +  * [Fe/H]: SICK is slightly better than GSP-Phot. GSP-Phot appears to systematically underestimate [Fe/H] by ~1dex for some stars. These problematic stars are fainter than G~15, i.e., SICK estimates [Fe/H] more robustly at lower S/N than GSP-Phot.
  
 == Test data == == Test data ==
  
-  * 2000 synthetic MARCS spectra (4000K-8000K) in Gaia BP/RP. Mostly Main-Sequence dwarfs but also some giants.+  * 2000 synthetic MARCS spectra in Gaia BP/RP.  
 +  * Mostly Main-Sequence dwarfs but also some giants. 
 +  * Teff from 4000K to 8000K. 
 +  * Test spectra created by GOG. (Not by our own forward models!) 
 + 
 +== Examples of posterior samples == 
 + 
 +  * Posterior distributions mostly well behaved for BP/RP, i.e., fast convergence, unimodal. 
 +  * Even in simple case the posteriors cannot be well approximated by a Gaussian. 
 +  * Rare examples with multimodal posterior. 
 + 
 +{{:tests:example-MCMC-unimodal.png|}} 
 + 
 +{{:tests:example-MCMC-multimodal.png|}} 
 + 
 +== Results for fitting BP/RP alone == 
 + 
 +^  ^ GSP-Phot bias ^ SICK bias ^ GSP-Phot sigma ^ SICK sigma ^ 
 +| Teff [K] | 14 | 18 | 100 | 100 | 
 +| AV [mag] | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.08| 
 +| logg [dex] | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.29 | 
 +| [Fe/H] [dex] | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.37 | 0.28 | 
 + 
 + 
 +{{:tests:sick-gspphot-teff.png|}} 
 +{{:tests:sick-gspphot-A.png|}} 
 +{{:tests:sick-gspphot-logg.png|}} 
 +{{:tests:sick-gspphot-feh.png|}} 
 + 
 + 
 +== Future tests == 
 + 
 +  * Compare initial guesses of GSP-Phot and SICK. (Possibly SVM fails for noisy data, which may explain why SICK estimates [Fe/H] better at faint magnitudes.) 
 + 
 + 
 +===== SICK: BP/RP alone vs. RVS alone ===== 
 + 
 +===== SICK: Fitting BP/RP and RVS simultaneously =====
tests/astropars/challenge3.1414751363.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/10/24 12:26 (external edit)