|
Connection:
https://zoom.us/j/92270792020?pwd=b1dndW96TkI4ZlNjcWIvbE5MS1lrQT09 Attendees: Fred, Alex, Roberto, Sylvain, Yohan, Sasha, fab, Nathalie, Lee, Thomas, Tapas, Ben, Adam, Not attending: Gemma For memory: Minutes from last week’s telecon Members and their main interests Agenda:
Young: G327 (84 cores), G338 (63 cores), W43-MM2 and MM3 (63 cores), Intermediate: G12 (82 cores), W51E (159 cores) Old: G10 (<100 cores), G333 (<183 cores), W51-IRS2 (<98 cores) The topic of each paper is up to the responsible team since CMF alone might not be interesting enough. Some of us proposed to present MST and mass segregation analyzes, comparisons between ALMA-IMF regions. If you need other datasets (especially lines), please ask the DR team but these papers should rather be “continuum-focused” papers. Here are the paper projects that will develop in the coming 6 months:
Alex: Introducing 7M data could help but artefacts will most probably appear. And computing time will increase with the number of pixels...
Fred: What does comparable bands mean? Inaccuracy should be estimated. Adam: another benchmark for fourier-space combination = feathering: https://github.com/radio-astro-tools/uvcombine/blob/master/uvcombine/uvcombine.py (it is exactly the same thing Alex described; it includes tools for converting units and regridding) Lee: Test of clean on the MM2 field, with and without self-calibration. Strange behavior suggesting that small scales are missing… TBC later!
For ATLASGAL: Timea could provide the ATLASGAL with Planck offset but current data could be more sensitive, TBC For SABOCA, using Herschel + Planck is OK ALMA 1mm and 3mm will most probably remain filtered (MUSTANG? BOLOCAM? TolTec? NIKA2?)
Sasha and Sylvain agree that we should use the Non-pbcorr image for detection to avoid the effect of variable noise and work on a flattened image. We then could use the pbcorr image for measurement or, even simpler, multiply the measured fluxes in the Non-pbcorr image by the PrimaryBeam image itself. The MnGSeg segmentation process produces a noise image (Gaussian part of the structure at the small scales) could give a good estimate of the noise in the map. Sylvain and Sasha could contact Jeff for that if it helps the extraction method. Here are preliminary results of tests. We need volunteers to make others:
At minimum, these images will be use as masks for intermediate regions.
comparing the measured values with the truth table. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Papers dedicated to individual (or a couple of) regions:
0 Comments
Connection:
https://ufl.zoom.us/j/96368629056?pwd=c1JmbWN6Rll0ZkNjYzJZamtXZFdmUT09 Attendees: Fred, Fabien, Alex, Yohan, Sasha, Adam, Gemma, Sylvain, Ben, Nathalie, Manuel, Hongli, Amy, Tapas, Mélanie, Antoine, Estrella, Patricio, Lee, Roberto Not attending: Thomas For memory: Minutes from last week’s telecon Members and their main interests Agenda:
Adam: Tests for W51 could be done using ammonia temperatures… Fred: The goal of Fabien’s paper is to show the integrated CMF of all ALMA-IMF regions and possibly the 3 integrated CMFs for the young, intermediate, evolved regions imaged by ALMA-IMF. It is mandatory to do a more detailed and more correct work on CMF for the regions that have enough cores. The topic of each paper is up to the responsible team since CMF alone might not be very interesting. Some of us proposed to present MST and mass segregation analyses, comparison between ALMA-IMF regions. If you need other datasets, please ask the DR team but these papers should rather be “continuum-focused” papers.
Walker is interested to work on the CMF of G327.
Fred: I’m not sure this will help since it is more an edge effect than a noise effect. Sasha could potentially improve on that.
Decided to use fixed 1.8 beta for first run (variable in future?) Decided to use just 12m for first run (maybe 12m AND 7m bands separate for future) Need to check equinox of ALMA regions (was at 0.1E-4) Before running W43 MM2/3 for final model: * Need to decided following: - Do we degrade 12m to 2"? Fred: Yes to 2.5’’ - Do we use combined 12m and 7m? Fred: In a second run yes. - Do we use just 7m instead? Fred: To be tested... Need beam profiles for all observations (currently missing B3 beam) To run other regions: Need observations from: Herschel (all 5 bands) SABOCA/LABOCA (or ArTeMiS instead of SABOCA) ALMA 12 B6 and B3 (1.3mm and 3mm)* If people are changing flux units and projection before sending to me, then please set everything to MJy/sr and the same projection (preferably RA---TAN, DEC--TAN, easiest to use Herschel images as a reference). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are prelimnary results of tests. We need volunteers to make others:
At minimum, these images will be use as masks for intermediate regions.
comparing the measured values with the truth table. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Papers dedicated to individual (or a couple of) regions:
Connection:
https://ufl.zoom.us/j/99224867876?pwd=Y1ZWMWE0QW44aGN4bDI4QmdlZTl4Zz09 Attendees: Fred, Yohan, Sasha, Alex, Adam, Gemma, Fab, Ben, Hongli, Tapas, Patricio, Roberto, Sylvain Not attending: Antoine Agenda:
Note from Sasha: It is absolutely much better to make simultaneous (multi-wavelength) extraction catalogs. Associating two independent catalogs for images with substantially different resolutions is a bad idea. Imagine this: a hires image shows 10 cores and a lores image only has one blob in the same place. Arbitrary association of the blob with just one source from the hires image is the worst idea. It is necessary to deblend the blob into 10 cores using the positions known from the hires image. Otherwise, the measurements will be completely wrong by a very large factor. Matching independent catalogs works only in the simplest (not realistic) case when both images resolve all cores. Comment from Fab: the 1mm and 3mm images have the same angular resolution.
Cleanest for measurement only Roberto said that the 3mm band should not be used for driving the detection for evolved regions... Questions:
comparing the measured values with the truth table.
idea. Much better to use the measurements from a code that gives better accuracy against the truth table of a benchmark and use the other measurement from the second code to assess the total uncertainties of the measured quantities.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dxZzeDgzZRRV9oFsjNnNStI79IdXHrp0DnB7X5gvcaU/edit?usp=sharing However, I don’t think it will get to the accuracy level of being able to run core identification algorithms in images with the free-free subtracted pixel-by-pixel. Rather, it can serve as a map to see where there is significant free-free contamination and estimate the free-free flux in selected areas. Fabien proposes to use these images as masks (for intermediate regions). Roberto and Adam say that VLA maps (W51, W43, G351) work better because the emission is optically thin and S/N is larger. We must investigate if extracting free-free flux at the position of cores is more efficient than measuring 1mm/3mm flux ratios to remove the free-free emission from the thermal dust emission of cores. Questions:
Adam and Nathalie said that we need a deep clean on each channel and it is difficult and will take long. Lee: Pure-continuum image is a dream toward hot cores like those in W43-MM2. Question: What else?
Necessary data are:
Papers dedicated to individual (or a couple of) regions:
|
RSS Feed