Differences

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

--- tests:sphtri [2015/09/02 13:05] – Added discussion section gmamon
+++ 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 54: / Line 69: @@
 ===== Results =====
-Results from running the above using a variety of techniques can be _ [[:tests:sphtri:results|here]].
+Results from running the above using a variety of techniques can be found [[:tests:sphtri:results|here]].
 ===== Discussion ======
@@ Line 66: / Line 81: @@
   *   * inner DM slope
   *   * inner stellar slope
-  *   * R_eff and uncertainty (although one could numerically estimate it by fitting nu(r) and projecting).
+  *   * 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 γ_DM (core DM) models, for which the median slope is not 0, but the MLE slope is.
+  * 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 J_LOS and J_ap (line-of-sight and aperture terms for the γ-ray emission from DM annihilation.
+  * 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//
@@ Line 74: / Line 89: @@
   * 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 R_eff^true?
+  *   * 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?)?