Differences

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

--- tests:sphtri [2015/09/01 17:09] – justin
+++ tests:sphtri [2022/10/24 12:10] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 **Key working group coordinator:** Justin Read
+**Summary of 2015 Gaia Challenge:** {{:tests:summary_sphericaltriaxial.pdf|Summary GCIII}}
 ----
@@ Line 23: / Line 24: @@
   * [[:tests:sphtri:triaxial|Triaxial models]]
   * [[:tests:sphtri:tidal|Tidally stripped models]]
+  * [[:tests:sphtri:axion|Axion DM model]]
+====== Priority order of runs ======
+We realise that the above mocks about to a very large number of tests which for some methods may be prohibitive. For this reason, if you can only run some of the tests the priority order is as follows:
+  * Spherical isotropic models viewed along z with velocity errors and 10,000 stars.
+  * Spherical radially anisotropic models viewed along z with velocity errors and 10,000 stars.
+  * Spherical tangentially anisotropic models viewed along z with velocity errors and 10,000 stars.
+  * The above with lower sampling (1000 stars; 100 stars). You may prefer to do the sampling tests just for one system in which case start with the isotropic models, as above.
+  * Split component models (if your method is capable of this; again with velocity error).
+  * Triaxial models with velocity error and 10,000 star sampling. Try projections along X (long axis); and the intermediate axis I.
+  * Tidally stripped models with velocity error and 10,000 star sampling.
+In all cases **projections should be along the z-axis**.
 ===== The default outputs =====
@@ Line 31: / Line 46: @@
   * Anisotropy profile (with confidence intervals as above); <latex>$\beta(r) = 1 -  \sigma_\theta^2/\sigma_r^2$</latex>
   * Projected light number density profile with conf. intervals
+  * 3D light density profile with conf. intervals
   * Projected velocity dispersion profile with conf. intervals
   * **Please output over the largest radial range feasible for your chosen technique**
@@ Line 38: / Line 54: @@
 File format: ASCII columnated (headings allowed). Example:
-^ Height (kpc) ^ Cumulative mass (Msun) [45.7% low] ^ 34% low ^ Median ^ 34% high ^ 47.5% high ^
+^ Projected/or 3D radius (kpc) ^ Cumulative mass (Msun) [2.3% low] ^ [15.9% low] ^ Median [50%] ^ [84.1% high] ^ [97.7% high] ^
 | 0.2 | 1e3 | 1e4 | 1e5 | 1e6 | 1e10 |
@@ Line 55: / Line 71: @@
 Results from running the above using a variety of techniques can be found [[:tests:sphtri:results|here]].
+===== Discussion ======
+**Gary**
+//Questions on outputs//
+  * Accuracy of outputs (say 3 digits or more after the decimal point. The poor accuracy of the example is misleading).
+  * Methods ought to provide important numbers as well as profiles:
+  *   * inner DM slope
+  *   * inner stellar slope
+  *   * half-projeted-mass radius <latex>$R_{1/2}$</latex> (<latex>$R_{\rm eff}$</latex> in ellitpical galaxy parlance) and uncertainty (although one could numerically estimate it by fitting <latex>$\nu(r)$</latex> and projecting).
+  * Should we provide maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) values of the profiles as well? This seems relevant for the DM density profiles of <latex>$\gamma_{\rm DM}$</latex> (core DM) models, for which the median slope is not 0, but the MLE slope is.
+  * Could add <latex>$J_{\rm LOS}$</latex> and <latex>$J_{\rm ap}$</latex> (line-of-sight and aperture terms for the γ-ray emission from DM annihilation).
+//Questions on comparisons of methods//
+  * Do we wish to make quantitative comparisons between methods, or simply compare them graphically?
+  * If we wish to make quantitative comparisons, which measures shall we use?
+  *   * Bias and scatter at specific radii such as <latex>$R_{\rm eff}^{\rm true}$</latex>?
+  *   * RMS difference with true profile between some radii (in linear or logarithmic bins?)?
+//Other questions//
+Can we still bring in new methods to this 3rd GAIA Challenge?