Where have all the ... ?

Let's hope so.

Posted August 22, 2013 2:25 PM

by mlpeck

These two sentences from the project overview page seem appropriate, if just a bit ironic:

Quality communication is a key component to the scientific process. If a tree falls in the forest… well, you know the phrase. In order to learn from each other’s experiments, successes, and failures, it is essential that we clearly communicate our process, our results, and their implications in the context of other research studies on the topic.

Posted August 27, 2013 3:56 PM

http://quenchtalk.galaxyzoo.org/#/boards/BGS0000001/discussions/DGS00001yw

Maybe there's a meta-experiment under way?

Posted August 29, 2013 3:15 PM

by trouille scientist, moderator, admin

Yes, correctly observed. My last post was August 23rd, with

and the two accompanying blog posts:

http://blog.galaxyzoo.org/2013/08/23/quench-new-classifications-needed/

and http://blog.galaxyzoo.org/2013/08/23/quench-boost-a-how-to-guide-part-1/

I then had to focus on submitting our proposal for a National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) grant. I'd be the Program Director for the astronomy REU program at Northwestern University (I'm jointly appointed at both the Adler Planetarium and Northwestern University). I'm really excited about the possibility, especially because we are going to be working with Chicago area colleges and universities to recruit underrepresented students in STEM who have limited research opportunities at their institution. The goal is to create a trusted network of research opportunities for underrepresented students in this area. This would be an awesome step towards that goal.

But, pursuing funding means temporarily having to put other responsibilities on hold. I had once again mistakenly expected the classifications to take longer than they did. I thought I'd have at least until Wednesday while the group made its way through classifying.

But the Quenchers are fast! Which is wonderful and much appreciated.

I should have posted the above explanation on Talk on Friday, so you all could know what I was working on and why I was not actively involved for a few days. We haven't yet had the time or real opportunity to develop trust that comes with a healthy mentoring relationship, in which you know silence means your partner is busy working on another project and you should forge ahead with what you're doing (as several of you have done!).

In any case, today I'm back in to Quench-land. My goals for today:

Finish writing and post Part 2 of the 'How-to-Guide' (following up on the blog post links above).
Write and schedule the post for Part 3 of the 'How-to-Guide'.
Respond to posts on Quench Talk.
Continue debugging Tools and Talk with the developers.
Email the science team about mini-projects within Quench that we think could help people navigate how to approach the analysis phase of a research project.

Continuing Forward!

Laura

Posted August 29, 2013 4:20 PM

It's a week later, more or less. Leaving aside posts on Thursday (29th August) itself, the only action in that past week has been in the Science part of this Talk¹.

Two of the sections (boards?) in the Science part have been active:

Background information, in which meeka777 started a new thread, Beyond background information; three posts, three zooites
Data Analysis Results.

In the latter, there are five threads with action in the last six days, and another four if last Thursday is included. Of those five, two are single-zooite ('participant') threads (just me), and one is a two-participant one (mlpeck and me). mlpeck posted to a well-established thread, six days' ago (that was the last action there); and jules, mlpeck, and your truly participated in the last of the five (What is needed to get a clean QS and a clean QC?).

Other than meeka777, only Jean Tate, mlpeck, and jules have posted here in the last six days.

When I come to this Talk, I often note who else is "Currently Online". Somewhat oddly, sometimes I see that I myself am not listed! 😮 which suggests that this is not 100% accurate. Of course, I often see that jules is online, as is mlpeck. Others? Not so much, but certainly there are some. Earlier today, for example, I saw SCIENTIST astropixie; yesterday (?) mzevin.

Why is it so quiet?

¹ And not counting my posts on the OOTD (Object of the Day) articles I wrote, in the GZ forum, in "Just chat": the one for Saturday 17th August, 2013, and the one for Saturday 31st August, 2013

Posted September 5, 2013 6:32 PM

by jules moderator in response to JeanTate's comment.

I think perhaps this project has proved to be more challenging than the scientists originally thought. You and mlpeck have certainly put the hours in (especially you Jean!) and I have a suspicion that one or two others may be working in the background, perhaps waiting to find something worth posting. I'll own up to being completely out of my comfort zone but I am determined to support this initiative somehow so I'm happy to hang around sorting out any Talk issues, pulling threads together, learning from others' posts and playing with the odd plot hoping something amazing turns up. I have actually learnt a great deal - about Quench galaxies, how to use Tools, skyserver terms - which is not something I would otherwise have done over on Moon Zoo or Solar Stormwatch!

It is very disappointing that so few volunteers are taking part though. And some science input would be really good right now - there are many questions (mainly yours!) left unanswered.

On the bright side - we are taking part in something new and potentially ground-breaking. There are bound to be unforeseen problems and frustrations the first time.

Posted September 6, 2013 9:21 PM

by mlpeck in response to JeanTate's comment.

Thanks jules.

being completely out of my comfort zone

My impression is that, of the non-professional astronomer zooites who've posted since Phase 1 ended, you're in good company. One thing I'd hoped this project might do is learn why this is so ... is it (mostly) that the Tools are new? that they're buggy? that most people prefer a more structured road to discovery (to mix a metaphor or two)? that the paper summaries mzevin and Laura wrote are just as unintelligible as the papers themselves? that Jean Tate's posts were too many? Or that it isn't just one or two things, but so many new (and difficult?) things all at once?

Maybe you'd be brave enough to kick off a discussion? "What is it that confused/dismayed/alarmed/disheartened/etc you about the way Phase 2 has gone?", something like that perhaps? At some point, I'd be interested to learn what the SCIENTISTs had expected, before Phase 2 began ...

we are taking part in something new and potentially ground-breaking

I completely agree! Which makes the silence all the more puzzling ...

Posted September 6, 2013 9:47 PM

by jules moderator

I tried something along those lines here. For me coming back to galaxies after a long time away on other Zooniverse projects there is much to re-learn and learn a-new. Pretty much everything in the glossary! OK you can't expect to contribute to a paper / article without putting in the effort but I'm so far behind some of the posts here that I doubt I'll catch up. And then there is time. I haven't really had the time to get engrossed in the subject - which is something I've found I need to do with a new topic. But I am learning. To be honest I expected many more people to be involved and that it would be more a case of "many hands make light work." Also data analysis is time consuming and in this case there are so many variables to consider it's a little overwhelming.

I suspect others will have a similar story.

Posted September 6, 2013 10:48 PM

The one and maybe only thing that has dismayed me is the lack of communication from the science team. Someone should be here every day, including weekends, interacting with people.

I was skeptical that serious data analysis could be done with a web based point and click interface, and so far I haven't seen a reason to change my mind. That doesn't bother me, but it might be a reason more people aren't participating. I think a bigger reason though is that people aren't seeing any progress or much in the way of lively conversation. It might not be too late to lure a few people back in, but it's going to take some effort from the credentialed scientists.

Posted September 7, 2013 3:28 AM

by jules moderator

Yes, feedback and guidance are key here. I wonder if people could be encouraged to return if we had a list of avenues (ie plots / tables) to explore. Wondering where to start might be one of the problems.

Posted September 7, 2013 11:55 AM

Being a complete novice to this project (but I have worked on other research projects) this has been completely challenging. But Jean, I've learnt a lot reading yours & mlpeck's threads each day (over the past couple of weeks) and I've found them really interesting and helpful. And I do read them each day, avidly. So I've had to read around, like Jules has said, going to skyserver, going through the forums, which I'm doing now, reading up on the glossary of terms, which I think some people with the same level of experience as me have found challenging, and in particular wondering how to apply them in tools. The issue that possibly stumps some zooites is how to apply the more technical data, in particular getting the head around spectroscopy and its variables and how to use them in tools. But having said that I look at everyones dashboard and copy and paste what they've done and try them out myself. And I read around to try to find out exactly what is being said.

I suppose it's a new project and there is some problems with the data and with tools being in beta format. I've learnt a lot since this project started, and we are taking part in something new and potentially ground breaking. And I'm sure there's others in the same boat as me who would say the same.

Posted September 7, 2013 1:01 PM

by jules moderator in response to ChrisMolloy's comment.

I think you're absolutely right. You describe just what I am doing too. 😄 There must be many like us who want to take part but who are struggling to know how to apply what we are learning.

Posted September 7, 2013 6:11 PM

It's encouraging to read posts like these! 😃 Especially about mine being read avidly 😉 (well, it's a little scary too; I'm not a SCIENTIST, or even a MODERATOR).

Is there any way I can help you, ChrisMolloy (and jules, and anyone else like you, reading this), to wrap your arms (or head) around things better?

meeka777 - who is online (or was, a few minutes ago) - wrote a really good post, Beyond background information, asking if anyone has "any recommendations on introductory astronomy info that might be a useful general foundation?" I didn't answer, because I don't have any good answer 😦 But I was rather surprised that no one else jumped in, not even any of the five astronomers on the most recent Hangout, where I relayed the question (in the comments section). I thought of PMing/emailing Zooniverse Education people like Kelly or Laura Wyte, and asking them to drop by and help (does anyone reading this think that might be worth trying?)

Are there specifics that are stumping you? Would you like some suggestions on cool analyses that you might attempt? Would a thread or two discussing what sorts of things might/could be worth investigating be interesting, or helpful?

The issue that possibly stumps some zooites is how to apply the more technical data, in particular getting the head around spectroscopy and its variables and how to use them in tools.

Spectroscopy sure is daunting, isn't it? Have you read Budgieye's GZ forum Zooite Guide to SDSS Spectra? Her Colours of Galaxies in SDSS : Redshift chart? Is what you're after more technical? Or more basic, in the sense of the physics that is behind this? Something else? All of the above??

Posted September 7, 2013 11:25 PM

Someone - mlpeck? - said that August is a bad month; maybe it's bad because that's when an awful lot of people in Europe take their annual holidays/vacations?

Anyway, I'm beginning to think at least some of those who've been very keen to engage with zooites in the past may have become reluctant to do so here in the Quench project, recently (and after summer vacation is over). For example, KWillett, vrooje (Brooke), and klmasters - three of the astronomers on the latest Hangout - have all been active in the past few days over in Galaxy Zoo Talk. On the other hand, astropixie - whose interests include "What turns off star formation in different types of galaxies at different times?" (if google found me the same astropixie!) - did post here recently (Yay!).

Posted September 8, 2013 9:28 AM

Hi Jean,

I started reading Budgieye's Zooite Guide to SDSS Spectra last week and have been going through this forum slowly. That table is very helpful. On top of that I have been doing the tutorials on Skyserver which have been informative.

Some basic cool suggestions on analyses that I could attempt in tools would be helpful for me and others, in particular, looking at the Flux's. That's what I really want to get my head around. However, I am open to other suggestions. One thing with the flux's, where there is the error listed how do you take this into account? I know there's still a glitch with the numbers in the error table.

That's all I can think of for now but I'm sure there's more I can ask and will in due course.

Posted September 8, 2013 11:58 AM

Here are some suggestions, all having to do with BPT diagrams in one way or another (the thread Quench Sample - BPT diagram has lots of background):

using Tools, and the QS catalog, can you make 'cuts' to remove objects with zero or negative flux for the five lines Halpha, Hbeta, Oiii, Nii, and Oii (I'll explain why Oii later)?
can you use Tools, on the QS galaxies which 'survive the cuts', to produce a scatterplot, a BPT diagram?
in the Carl Ferkinhof PDF (link in the thread above), there is a brief description of other BPT diagrams, using different ratios; how many of these can be produced - in principle! - using the QS data?
that PDF includes several references; how confident do you feel about finding the papers online? reading them?
from what you've read so far, what 'color cuts' might be sensible, in order to examine at least some of the QS galaxies in the (traditional) BPT diagram in more detail?

As I have no real idea of what you may find easy, hard but doable, 'seems like a totally foreign language' (etc), I don't want to create any expectations ... and simply having a discussion on how you might go about doing any of these would be worthwhile, IMHO. 😃

Posted September 8, 2013 7:16 PM

Hi Jean,

I can filter. Took me a while but yes. Wonderful! Made all the cuts as suggested. Are getting better with creating fields too. BPT diagrams, don't know, possibly. Looked at yours. Downloaded Carl Ferkinhof. I need to know a bit more on the theory though. I am still learning. Essentially more reading to work out reasonable analyses. What 'color cuts' might be sensible. Then apply in tools.

Finding the papers is not a problem. The reading is not overly onerous once you get into it. Sometimes it can be though. A bit like tools.

With regards to BPT diagrams, using different ratios; how many of these can be produced - in principle! - using the QS data? Can't answer yet. Could hazard a guess but won't But hopefully will be able to answer soon.

Posted September 9, 2013 6:03 AM

Here's part of what I just wrote in reply to meeka777's question, in Beyond background information; it might be helpful to some readers of this thread too:

What about Bill Keel (NGC3314)'s Tutorial bits on galaxy spectra, also in the GZ forum? That forum also has a section (board) called Object of the Day; as almost all the threads there are about galaxies, and as many contain a fair bit of detail, ... The Galaxy Zoo blog contains posts written (mostly) by the astronomers active in that project; many of those posts contain background details - about specific galaxies, or galaxy types - which may be helpful to you too.

Posted September 9, 2013 3:14 PM

Cool! 😃

If you get stuck anywhere, or have any questions on what you're reading (and learning), please don't hesitate to ask!

FWIW, I've found - through many questions - that the GZ forum's Science Questions (for questions that are closely related to the Galaxy Zoo project, in any iteration) and Star space (for more general astronomy-related questions) sections are good go-to places for specific questions (I've tried many other places, both within and without the Zooniverse; those two have proven to be the best, in general). Bill Keel (NGC3314) in particular never seems to tire of patiently answering even the most difficult (to me!) questions.

Posted September 9, 2013 3:20 PM

by mlpeck in response to trouille's comment.

Thanks. Very helpful. If I get stuck will ask.

Posted September 10, 2013 9:47 AM

by trouille scientist, moderator, admin

I feel terrible about having been absent from Talk. There's a lot going on in the background with Tools and data updates. I should have been posting here to keep you all in the loop. My sincere apologies. Also, I want to be more present responding to questions. I've had some trouble getting used to the discussion forum space. I think there's quite a bit we could do to make this easier for discussion and connecting threads. But that's no excuse for not being more present. I am also hoping to encourage others in the science team to be more connected, especially now that all the classification results are uploaded into Tools (yes! as of today!).

Do check out today's Quench Boost, part 3. I know a number of you have made BPT diagrams in the past. Now that the updates are in place and the Control sample has emission line fluxes, I'd recommend revisiting.

Again, my sincere apologies. We're learning a lot this time around doing this type of approach. I'm so thankful you've been willing to keep on going.

One thing that would be quite helpful would be if someone posted an update on the list of outstanding questions. I know Jean and perhaps others have done this. If you could point me to those first compilations and possibly provide a more recent one, that will help me jump back in to Quench and give a better supporting hand.

Thank you all!

Posted September 13, 2013 1:15 AM

by mlpeck

I have one question for now. Could you discuss the quench sample selection criteria in detail? I'm reasonably conversant in principal components analysis and I'd really like a detailed technical exposition of the role PCA played in sample selection. This thread seems like a reasonable location for followup discussion.

A comment too. The updated data tables look like a huge improvement. However, the index I was ranting about was the Lick index Hδ_A, which is a measure of absorption line strength, corrected for emission. In DR9+ that's tabulated as "lick_hd_a" in the galSpecIndx table. This is a really important piece of data because it's the best optical indicator of a strong starburst in the recent past.

Posted September 13, 2013 3:38 AM

by jules moderator in response to trouille's comment.

I've made a start collating questions here.

Posted September 13, 2013 10:45 PM

by trouille scientist, moderator, admin

Wonderful Jules. Thank you!

Mlpeck -- ach! Of course. lick_hd_a makes more sense. Would you be interested in culling those values from the database and placing them in a file somewhere online? I'll then work with the Tools developer to get those into the tables.

Posted September 14, 2013 12:21 AM

Yes I'll do it, probably Saturday, and share it through dropbox.

Posted September 14, 2013 3:07 AM

by mlpeck

Done:

Lick H delta values for quench database: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lryj72fjd0mb4wr/hda.quench.csv,

and control: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5hqe7ygrr7xhau2/hda.control.csv.

These should be in the same order as the current versions of the main quench and control data tables. There are several missing values in the control set.

Posted September 14, 2013 6:18 PM

by zutopian

Currently, many GZ astronomers are at a conference in Sydney.:

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/conferences/2013/gzo/participants.html

...and they are also at twitter.

Posted September 23, 2013 7:54 AM

Indeed. Among those who have posted here, and who are listed as presenting, are Amanda Bauer (astropixie), Karen Masters Edward Paget, Brooke Simmons, and Kyle Willett. Other Zooniverse folk include Kelly Borden, Amit Kapadia, Sugata Kaviraj, William Keel, Chris Lintott, Thomas Melvin, Bob Nichol, Kevin Schawinski, and Chris Snyder.

Posted September 23, 2013 1:56 PM

Back to the topic of this thread: in the last four days or so, the only zooites who have posted here are me, mlpeck, and zutopian. In that time, only the Science section has been active (barring one post, by zutopian, in the Objects section).

Posted October 1, 2013 3:21 AM

by mlpeck

My last substantive post was on 23 September, so my level of participation has been worse than it appears.

I'm assuming this project is on hold (pending what? Usable tools perhaps?) or even abandoned.

Posted October 1, 2013 7:32 PM

by jules moderator in response to mlpeck's comment.

Participation is disappointing to say the least. I seem to be shaking off this cold at last so I'll plug away at some more basic stuff over the next few days. I also need to read through your and Jean's posts from the last 10 days or so to get back up to speed. Feeling slightly adrift though. My contribution is very basic compared with yours and Jean's but I'm determined to stick with this project. If nothing else I have given Tools a good work out. I think we do need some guidance and ideas about how (and which bits to use) to pull this together now.

Posted October 1, 2013 9:29 PM

I did my 1st post in GZQ Talk 14 days ago. Since then there are just few other persons, who did posts.:

Jean Tate and mlpeck (I have the impression, that they are somehow disappointed, but nonetheless still interested in this project.)
jules moderator
mzevin1 moderator/scientist and trouille moderator/scientist

Posted October 2, 2013 7:48 AM

And indeed, a big WELCOME to you, zutopian! 😃

Your (relatively brief) participation has produced a very good result already; namely, the discovery of a serious short-coming in the way the zooite classifications (a dozen or more per object per field) were converted to category values (one per field/parameter) for the 'merging' parameter.

When I visit Quench Talk, I often take a look to see who else is "Currently Online". I know, from my own experience, that this is not 100% reliable - I've been online, but "Jean Tate" does not show up - but it's pretty good. In the last 14 days or so, there have been quite a few other zooites "Currently Online" at least once. I wonder what they've found, and what they thought?

Posted October 3, 2013 2:03 AM

Hope you're feeling better now jules.

I've been thinking about what more I can do here, until we hear more from the GZ Science Team. Here are some of the things I've listed:

follow up on mlpeck's suggestion (somewhere!) that there should be a redshift cut: objects with redshift < some value should be excluded (many good reasons)
similarly, perhaps do a size cut: exclude all objects with petro_r50 > some_value (one reason: the part of the galaxy the spectrum is of is too small, as a proportion of the whole galaxy, to be representative)
extend the investigation I did into the relationship between ellipticity (per the relevant SDSS PhotoObj parameters) and 'roundness' classifications (and edge_on)
repeat my calculations of E(B-V) for Composite and AGN objects, both QS and QC

I would also be very happy to explain any of the analyses I've done so far, to the point where zooites such as you, jules, and zutopian could undertake similar analyses yourself.

Posted October 3, 2013 2:14 AM

Thank you!
Actually, I didn't have the intention to use GZQ Talk.: I am just here, because you copied my comments, which I had done in a GZ blog post, to GZQ Talk. Thanks for that. I am now pleased to be here, but my participation in GZQ Talk is "just for fun".: I did some posts, but actually I am just a "guest". I don't know, how long I will stay. I haven't the intention to use Tools to create dashboards to analyse data. Anyway.
I am interested in your response to jules's comment, where you listed some topics. Could you please post links?

Posted October 3, 2013 10:20 AM

I'm still here and check in each day. Not necessarily logged in either (you don't need to be). Been doing a lot of backgrund reading on the topic, going back through old threads, working with Tools, trying out different variables with the morphology mainly, and following the merger reclassifications.

I think there is so much potential in this project, not just for Quench but for future GZ projects as well. Implications could be huge. I suppose we just have to be patient and persevere. I remind myself that this project is partly in Beta and there will be problems. However, I think as Jules has said above we do need some guidance and ideas about how (and which bits to use) to pull this together now. That's what I'm waiting for.

Posted October 3, 2013 10:59 AM

by jules moderator

Yay! Glad you're still around Chris! I too read the forum as guest occasionally. In fact I'll be doing just that trying to catch up over the next few days.

Posted October 3, 2013 2:06 PM

by JeanTate in response to JeanTate's comment.

Whatever the reason, it's very good that you're here, zutopian; I do hope you'll stay, and try out Tools at least once.

I am interested in your response to jules's comment, where you listed some topics. Could you please post links?

Sure, I'll do what I can. I don't know how familiar you are with Talk, but it's close to impossible to post a link to a particular post (unless it's the OP, or is one of the ones in "Featured Discussion"). That wouldn't matter if the post in question were on page 1 of a thread ('discussion'); however, many of the most interesting posts - IMHO - are on some other page, and some threads are now > 10 pages long ...

Posted October 4, 2013 2:26 AM

Per zutopian's request, some links to go with the bullet points:

follow up on mlpeck's suggestion (somewhere!) that there should be a redshift cut: objects with redshift < some value should be excluded (many good reasons)

The comment by mlpeck that I was remembering is in the What is needed to get a clean QS and a clean QC? thread, 7th post; the key part is: "A simple redshift cut would go a long way towards solving the problem of galaxies that are too big. This is standard practice anyway and wouldn't raise eyebrows among peer reviewers -- I'd guess that not having redshift cuts would be more eyebrow-raising." and the rest of the post expands on this.

similarly, perhaps do a size cut: exclude all objects with petro_r50 > some_value (one reason: the part of the galaxy the spectrum is of is too small, as a proportion of the whole galaxy, to be representative)

This is also covered in that same thread, and to some extent the same mlpeck post. More details in the Galaxies which are too big (Petro_R50 >> fiber aperture) thread (but note that for some very big galaxies, Petro_R50 is hopelessly wrong ... it's far too small)enter link description here.

extend the investigation I did into the relationship between ellipticity (per the relevant SDSS PhotoObj parameters) and 'roundness' classifications (and edge_on)

This is in the Detailed investigation: outliers and anomalies in 'redshift bin #10' thread, on page 2.

repeat my calculations of E(B-V) for Composite and AGN objects, both QS and QC

The How to tell how much dust there is in a QS (or QC) galaxy, from the spectroscopic (or photometric) data in the catalogs? thread has it all (so far).

Posted October 4, 2013 2:41 AM

I second jules' comment, Chris; it's wonderful that you're persevering. 😃

However, I think as Jules has said above we do need some guidance and ideas about how (and which bits to use) to pull this together now. That's what I'm waiting for.

I have a suggestion: instead of waiting - or perhaps as well as waiting - why don't we just work out something to work on ourselves?

For example, there's a website¹ with very nicely written summaries of some key papers on post-quench galaxies. And links to the papers themselves. From your reading of those papers, what do you think are some important questions about this kind of galaxy that we might be able to start to answer, using the QS and QC catalogs? It doesn't matter - IMHO - how poorly formed or how silly you think any question you can come up with may sound; what's important is that we actually have some questions/ideas to start kicking around and brainstorming about.

Another example: while you were classifying - in Stage 1 of this project - did you notice a trend? In browsing through various zooites' Collections, have you been struck by something? I remember jules saying (where? I don't recall 😦) that there seemed to be rather a lot of edge-on galaxies; did you - at any stage - get that feeling too? Why not share some of these 'here's what I noticed' feelings/intuitions? We can then have a discussion on how we might go about testing such ideas, to see if they hold water?

¹ It's a Blogspot site, so that means I cannot access it (yes, right now I'm in China)

Posted October 4, 2013 3:17 AM

by mlpeck

I've flown off on a completely speculative tangent that involves combining principal components analysis with gaussian mixture modelling as a tool for classifying galaxy spectral properties. Strangely enough a paper showed up on arxiv.org yesterday (3 Oct.) that describes exactly what I've been doing, except that they're using non-negative matrix factorization instead of principal components (also, they're looking at IR spectra): Learning the Fundamental MIR Spectral Components of Galaxies with Non-Negative Matrix Factorisation.

I'm also experimenting with stacking spectra. A comment I posted a few days ago was based on my experiments in these areas.

None of this directly relates to the supposed science goals of this project, but I may post some stuff anyway when the mood strikes.

I looked through all 3000 quench sample objects using the SDSS thumbnail tool several weeks ago and noticed a lot of rings and ripple/shell like features in galaxies without obvious spiral structure.

Posted October 4, 2013 9:55 PM

Hi Jean,

I’ve read those articles and the summaries.

This is what struck me during the classifying process of the Quenched galaxies.

Very bright nucleus/bulges. Almost super bright. Not a huge amount but significant to register when classifying.
There seemed to be a larger number of asymmetrical galaxies. Nucleus off centre and bright. This is mentioned in the summaries also. I wondered whether some of the hashtags would have classified them as disturbed.
A higher preponderance of tidal debris or some sort of interaction. I didn’t really notice mergers as such through my classifications but did notice tidal debris or possible traces of tidal debris.
Edge on galaxies. I did notice a lot more than usual. They reminded me of the red spirals section in the GZ Forum.

If I remember correctly we are suppose to be writing a four page article. So from the summary of the three articles there seems to be roughly six core questions that are addressed by each of the papers. I think we need to work out what our core questions are remembering we only have limited space.

We need a list of questions, filtering to the core questions and then from that we need to proceed. As an example mergers, bulges, colour, environment, mass, agn, age & metallicity, sfr, etc. etc. etc. And from that we need to tick off what is relevant and what isn’t and where the relevant fits. Someone who has a good overview of the data could oversee the pertinent questions, data and structure.

But then we also need to think about what makes our paper and analyses of the data different from the other papers produced on Quenched galaxies. The Control Sample? Similar set of targeted galaxies with loosely defined related characteristics?

What interests me is the issue of asymmetrical galaxies (which comes under mergers) and bright bulges. I was really struck by the Fang paper on star formation quenching and inner stellar mass density. I also started looking at the asymmetrical symmetrical galaxies in tools, based on the FOD and Smooth morphology for each data set. But I’m waiting for the update to Tools and for a clean dataset. I was then going to look at the bulge classifications with the same above parameters.

So, I hope this answers what you were asking. And my apologies for the delay in responding. I probably spent to much time thinking about this question but it was a thoroughly worthwhile exercise.

Just one thing. To do some of the above maybe Authorea would be the place to start putting down ideas? Might be more manageable?

Posted October 6, 2013 7:30 AM

by mzevin1 scientist, moderator in response to ChrisMolloy's comment.

I think ChrisMolloy brings up a really good point - it would be very helpful if we could specify and narrow down the core questions we want to and have the capabilities to address. This should help to streamline the data analysis phase. Now that those of you who are still around (we can't thank you enough for this!) are comfortable with the framework of tools we can delve deeper into these important questions. I've created a new thread here where we can accumulate these questions and decide which ones are the most important for us to address.

Posted October 7, 2013 12:49 AM

by JeanTate in response to mzevin1's comment.

That's ... simply fantastic, ChrisMolloy! 😃

But then we also need to think about what makes our paper and analyses of the data different from the other papers produced on Quenched galaxies. The Control Sample? Similar set of targeted galaxies with loosely defined related characteristics?

While the QC catalog is certainly interesting - for (almost¹) every QS object there is a QC one which matches it in both redshift and mass - it's not what makes this project unique. What we have is morphology classifications. So let's aim to come up with core questions that at least use these, perhaps even make morphology-related aspects central?

So, ignoring the how? for now, questions we might seek to answer may look something like this:

to what extent are post-quenched galaxies merging (cf the controls)?
how much more disturbed are post-quenched galaxies (than the controls)? - this could pull in differences in FOD/Smooth, N_clumps, and asymmetry, and so go beyond merely 'merging'²

Very bright nucleus/bulges. Almost super bright. Not a huge amount but significant to register when classifying.
What interests me is the issue of [...] bright bulges

This would make a very interesting study topic, I think. Irrespective of whether it ends up being one the core questions or not; and I'd like to work with you on it, OK?

Edge on galaxies. I did notice a lot more than usual. They reminded me of the red spirals section in the GZ Forum.

IIRC (if I recall correctly), jules also mentioned this; it's something I noticed as well. Also a semi-independent research topic?

Just one thing. To do some of the above maybe Authorea would be the place to start putting down ideas? Might be more manageable?

Would you like to take the first step?

¹ Aside from the issues associated with having objects which are not galaxies, in both catalogs, and other outliers, there's also the fact that ~100 objects have no estimated log_mass

² viewed this way, the choice of "Disturbed" as a superset description for all 'merging' classifications is an unfortunate one.

Posted October 7, 2013 7:52 AM

I agree.

Speaking personally, however, we also need to do something else rather urgently. ChrisMolloy - and zutopian, and yours truly, and jules, and mlpeck - have pointed out that we need a clean dataset. Yet apart from a) the removal of the QC objects that were duplicates of QS ones; b) ditto, for QC-QC duplicates; and c) the removal of an object with a highly uncertain redshift, the latest version of the two catalogs contains the same objects as the first.

I have tried - more than once - to get a discussion going on this general topic, as has mlpeck (perhaps the thread with the most concentrated discussion is What is needed to get a clean QS and a clean QC?).

Does anyone know why all the SCIENTISTs seem to have avoided any and all discussion of this topic (beyond that related to the removal of some of the duplicates and the one 'bad redshift' object)?

Posted October 7, 2013 8:07 AM

Today mzevin did following comment as a reply to a post by me (concerning selection criteria and clean samples) in the topic "Outstanding questions".:
http://quenchtalk.galaxyzoo.org/#/boards/BGS000000e/discussions/DGS00001zz?page=2&comment_id=5251f17074983261e9000006

I'm working to get the specifics of the selection criteria - I should have that info fairly soon. I will keep you posted.
This thread talks generally on the selection criteria of the sample:
http://quenchtalk.galaxyzoo.org/#/boards/BGS000000a/discussions/DGS00001xk

Posted October 7, 2013 10:14 AM

Hi Jean,

I'm going to start looking in tools with the bulges. So apart from the obvious filtering on both datasets what other specific parameters should we look at? I might also look in tools at edgeon galaxies. Just one thing. What defines a proper edgeon as opposed to inclined? Am thinking of classification bias. And yes these could be semi independent research topics whether used or not. From what I've seen and I'm still catching up, there's some really good ideas here.

Also, I'll have a look at Authorea and see what is there and get back to you on this.

Posted October 8, 2013 9:28 AM

Hi Chris,

Assuming a clean, matched dataset - equal numbers of post-quenched galaxies and controls, and each post-quenched galaxy has a control counterpart with 'the same' stellar mass (per the log_mass parameter) and redshift (and no stars masquerading as galaxies, etc) - the first thing to look at is differences in distributions (or prevalence/incidence/whatever): how do the numbers of 'asymmetric bulges' among the QS galaxies compare with those among the QC ones? If each is split into three (say), by mass, how do these numbers¹ differ (QS cf QC)? How about the proportion of asymmetric bulges AND tidal tails (this time it's fractions, not numbers)?

What defines a proper edgeon as opposed to inclined?

That's a question for the SCIENTISTs, I think. For large (many thousand pixels) edge-ons, I guess it's things like symmetry, presence of a central dustlane, and so on; for smaller ones perhaps 'isophotal shape'? (I'm guessing)

¹ You're actually looking at fractions, or proportions; but since the totals are the same, the denominators are the same, and only the numerators matter

Posted October 8, 2013 11:40 AM

So start by just looking at asymmetric galaxies and then breaking it down further? Understand the numbers fractions.

Posted October 8, 2013 12:36 PM

Yes, that's a good place to start. 😃

Posted October 8, 2013 1:05 PM

So checked out Authorea. I think it's a no go at the moment. The article is set up. But when logging in you need to wait to receive an invitation to join the Post-quenched Galaxy Project. I haven't received one. So I presume we have to wait for Laura or someone from the science team for this.

Anyway, the tutorials look good (only about 2 minutes each) and the package seems very functional. Would be a good place to get an overview.

Posted October 9, 2013 12:01 PM

Thanks for that!

If, for whatever reason, none of us receives such an invitation, can we create an Authorea paper - on post-quenched galaxies or any other topic - on our own?

How's the analysis of bulges coming on?

Posted October 10, 2013 1:52 AM

With regards to Authorea papers yes, I think this is possible. I think anyone can create an open access article. It's a bit unclear but it does state in the Plans & Pricing section that "Authorea will always be free for you to author, and for others to access, unlimited public Open Science articles with as many coauthors as you want". Private articles is a fee. Prices are then listed. There is list of open access articles which is easy to access. So the Quenched Article is a Private Article, which is not listed, hence the invite.

Going to start working on the galaxies tonight and over the next few days. Will let you know how I go.

Posted October 10, 2013 11:10 AM

Have completed the first look at asymmetrical in different log mass. Dashboards won't load but will write up. Interesting the difference in numbers between QS and QC.

Posted October 12, 2013 12:54 PM

http://quenchtalk.galaxyzoo.org/#/users/ivywong

Here are a couple of posts from the GZ forum that those who continue to read, and post, to Quench Talk may find interesting:

me: Do you know if anyone, on any Zooniverse project Science Team, has considered involving any ordinary zooites in the process of writing papers such as the GZ2 one? Several published Zooniverse papers, including Galaxy Zoo ones, have ordinary zooites among the list of authors, but as yet none of the 'survey' ones do (as far as I know). Whether any ordinary zooite would have the technical nous to contribute to the level expected of an author, I do not know; however, I have no doubt that quite a few would be more than willing to put the necessary time and effort in if they were invited.

KWillett: I haven't been a part of a discussion around that yet. I agree with you that we have volunteers willing to put in considerable time and effort, which is appreciated. I think the results of Galaxy Zoo: Quench will help demonstrate the level of analysis and reduction that Zooites can do, and might open up more GZ projects in the future.

Posted October 15, 2013 2:43 AM

by zutopian

Finally, GZ astronomer Ivy Wong started to participate in GZQ Talk.:

I appreciate this and I am sure, that the other zooites are also pleased.

Posted October 16, 2013 2:08 PM

by jules moderator

Just heard from Laura who has been on her travels again and says she will return to the States (and Quench) at the end of the week. 😄

Posted October 17, 2013 12:54 PM

by trouille scientist, moderator, admin

Hi all. Back once again and ready for post-quenched galaxy action. Thank you to all who have been active and continuing to investigate the sample and the questions. I'll be catching up over the next few days. I just posted the first response about sample selection over here.

Posted October 21, 2013 11:33 PM

by trouille scientist, moderator, admin

If we jump too quickly into working on the actual text of the article, we'll be putting the cart before the horse. Before opening up the authorea article to all of us, there's a major step we need to accomplish first.

we need to identify ~4 major plots to include in the final article. To do that, I've started a discussion board to provide a compilation of potential plots to include. The posts should describe a particular plot and why it might be useful to include. By useful, this could be a plot that helps provide background/context and/or describe the sample and/or illustrate a major result, etc.

These 4 plots will help provide the backbone along which the rest of the article will build itself. It'll help us define what our major results are, it'll set the background info and context we need to include in our introduction, it'll help us narrow in on what we want to focus on in the discussion, and set how we present our conclusions.

It is a wee bit premature to start this 'plot identification' process already, but in responding about authorea, I wanted to help explain why I haven't made the article public yet.

I'm still catching up on all the different threads. I've already seen a few really interesting results, but I do know there's still questions about the sample and cleaning up the sample that we need to resolve first. I'll be responding to those questions next.

Posted October 21, 2013 11:52 PM

by JeanTate in response to trouille's comment.

Now it's my turn to be in 'catch up' mode.

I do know there's still questions about the sample and cleaning up the sample that we need to resolve first

If I may ask, do you consider all the relevant questions - concerning the sample and cleaning up - to have been now resolved?

Posted November 8, 2013 10:25 PM

I think we may have been abandoned by the science team. 😦

Here are the dates of the last posts by various SCIENTISTs (that I could find; if you find any more recent, please post them! Ditto for any SCIENTIST I have missed):

vrooje: August 9
klmasters: August 9
KWillett: August 29
jtmendel: October 10
mzevin1: October 11
ivywong: October 28
trouille: November 7

What's going on?!?

Posted November 18, 2013 1:16 AM

by jules moderator in response to JeanTate's comment.

I'll contact the people I have e-mails for and try to find out.

Posted November 19, 2013 11:38 PM

by jules moderator

Still no word. I'm not actually sure who is still on the science team.

Posted November 22, 2013 4:48 PM

I'm beginning to suspect that the unofficial goals of this project have changed; to a significant extent, I think it may now be something like "let's see how far a small band of keen - but very amateur - ordinary zooites can go, entirely on their own".

It's never been clear to me how a professional astronomer gets to be 'on the science team', nor what someone has to do to get SCIENTIST in their Talk v2 title (I think you got MODERATOR if you are a mod in any Talk v2; not sure what happens if you're a mod in a Talk v1 only, or a non-Talk Zooniverse-based forum). It would seem that, every now and then, someone edits the 'Science Team' webpage, and removes/reclassifies those who are no longer active, but it seems pretty arbitrary, and only after much delay.

Posted November 23, 2013 3:19 PM

(if you find any more recent, please post them! Ditto for any SCIENTIST I have missed):

Please be informed, that you missed 2 of the scientists, which are listed in following post by you.:

Among those who have posted here, and who are listed as presenting, are Amanda Bauer (astropixie), Karen Masters, Edward Paget, Brooke Simmons, and Kyle Willett. (...)

PS : The post is also in this topic (on page 3) and it is related to the conference in Sydney.
PPS: Brooke Simmons is aka vrooje.

Posted November 24, 2013 1:06 PM

Thanks zutopian.

The last post by astropixie - that I could find - is dated September 6.

While Edward Paget is certainly on the Science Team, I think he's more on the Zooniverse/software side than astronomy/astrophysics.

Posted November 25, 2013 6:02 PM

by jules moderator

Good news! I've had an e-mail from Laura (trouille) who will be back with us soon. She has had some deadlines to meet but has also been thinking of how to progress the Quench project and promises to "rally the troops" for their assistance. 😄

Posted November 29, 2013 10:51 PM

by JeanTate in response to mlpeck's comment.

That is good news indeed.

Posted November 30, 2013 7:00 PM

by mlpeck

And for that matter, where have all the "citizen scientists" gone?

I'm the only person who has posted anything in the science section since 7 Jan. 2014. JeanTate has posted nothing there since 2 Jan., and the last appearance by a credentialed scientist in the science section was Trouille on 20 Dec. 2013.

There has also been no explanation by the GZ science/technical team for the scrambled classification data that were uploaded to tools around 23 Dec. (?), and as far as I know the data haven't been corrected (although the last few times I've tried to log into tools it has just hung on me).

Posted January 14, 2014 3:56 PM

I've been here, checking on what's been happening, most times 3+ times a day.

I've also been mulling over what to do, and write. I'm now almost ready to post a proposal, having mentally drafted dozens, and on a scratchpad, more than a handful. I had intended to formally write it today, but IRL 'stuff happened' ...

Posted January 15, 2014 12:04 AM

by JeanTate in response to JeanTate's comment.

I had intended to formally write it today, but IRL 'stuff happened' ...

It's still happening 😢

Posted January 16, 2014 12:10 AM

Done: Quench project: a proposal aimed at reviving and completing it..

I'll be sending PMs to ChrisMolloy, jules, mlpeck, and zutopian, informing them of my proposal. If you think I should also alert anyone else, please let me know (or contact them yourself directly).

Looking forward to your thoughts! 😃

Posted January 16, 2014 8:06 PM

by jules moderator

Sorry to be the bearer of (possibly!) unwelcome news but I'm bowing out of Quench as I just don't have the time any more. None of us expected this to still be going now and it's the kind of thing I need to give all my attention to - and I honestly can't do that. Please check your PMs. And good luck! 😃

Posted January 17, 2014 3:38 PM

by zutopian in response to jules's comment.

You did a great job! You are a real citizen scientist and a really kind person. I wished, that you had time to continue.
I think, that if the scientists had invested more time in this project, it would have already been completed.

PS: I received your PM.

Posted January 17, 2014 8:15 PM

by mlpeck

Sorry to be the bearer of (possibly!) unwelcome news but I'm bowing
out of Quench as I just don't have the time any more.

Yes, it's unwelcome but understandable. I hope that if the project gets back on track you will check in at least as time permits.

Posted January 18, 2014 12:36 AM

Looking forward to your thoughts!

I don't continue to participate. Well, my participation in this project isn't important, because I didn't do any scientific analysis of the data.
Nonetheless, I would like, that the scientists will collaborate to complete this project soon.

Posted January 18, 2014 6:14 AM

by ChrisMolloy in response to mlpeck's comment.

Give me a day or two to respond. Back from break. Sad about Jules but I hope she checks back in if possible when things hopefully get moving.

Posted January 19, 2014 9:57 AM

I just tried Tools now. It hung for me too.

Posted January 19, 2014 10:10 AM

I too am sorry to see both jules and zutopian go 😦 But at least I can see that both are very active in Star Date M83! 😃

Good to see you're back, ChrisMolloy; I'll wait to see what you write in this thread before proceeding.

And in case you miss it, I'll also be posting in at least one other Quench thread, that mlpeck has been active in these last couple of weeks, to the effect that - whatever happens to the proposal - I'd be very interested in working with him to crunch some more numbers and maybe write up the results, possibly as a paper, on the somewhat independent pieces of research he's been pursuing ...

Posted January 20, 2014 1:54 AM

I too am sorry to see both jules and zutopian go 😦 But at least I can see that both are very active in Star Date M83! 😃

Well, the project concerning the Starburst galaxy M83 is going to be over soon.: The volunteers are just asked to classify the 3000 star cluster images. I have seen some posts by you in the Talk forum of that project.
Currently, I don't participate in other Zooniverse projects, but as you know, I am sometimes in the GZ forum and Jules also. 😃
I noticed, that you are currently active in many astronomical Zooniverse projects.: GZ, GZ Quench, GZ Radio (you did here a related post), Star Date M83 and maybe other projects. You are a dedicated zooite! 😃

Posted January 20, 2014 1:20 PM