tests:astropars:challenge3
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
tests:astropars:challenge3 [2014/10/31 10:29] – randrae | tests: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 | + | * 2000 synthetic MARCS spectra in Gaia BP/ |
+ | * 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, | ||
+ | * Even in simple case the posteriors cannot be well approximated by a Gaussian. | ||
+ | * Rare examples with multimodal posterior. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | == 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 | | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == 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)