Potentially problematic sources in "the 778"
-
by
JeanTate
From Dealing with Sample Selection Issues:
#2 - Identify if any problematic sources are still in this stricter sample selection of 778 Quench and 778 Control sources. As done previously, let’s group the remaining problematic sources into categories and list their ObjIDs. That way we can make it very clear in the article why we have done any additional removal of sources (if we find that we need to).
I'll start with a list of all those QS objects - among "the 778" - which have been identified as being some sort of outlier, by being posted previously as such somewhere in this Quench Talk. Later I'll work with zutopian (and anyone else who's interested!) to categorize them. IMPORTANT NOTE: this is just a 'collect a list' exercise; in no way does it suggest which of these should be explicitly noted as outliers, or treated separately in any analyses.
First, the list: DR7 ObjId then AGS uid (32 in all):
588848900445241621 AGS000000w
587725039016345696 AGS000003c
587731512619106324 AGS000007r
588015509293039798 AGS0000081
587728309101789218 AGS00000c3
587728307493404797 AGS00000c5
587728920056037446 AGS00000fs
587726878344741087 AGS00000j9
588295840706396256 AGS00000tb
587733603191423190 AGS00000y8
587735491361374227 AGS0000118
587734949661507702 AGS000011x
588017627760427120 AGS0000141
587736618247585877 AGS000014z
587736619322114241 AGS0000153
588018089475441064 AGS0000161
588298664111112243 AGS000017a
587736942525415485 AGS00001c9
587733432461754555 AGS00001dn
587736915150438860 AGS00001fx
587738066191515761 AGS00001mb
587738615943725169 AGS00001nu
587739407322841219 AGS00001qc
587739114697195853 AGS00001rm
587739609707511849 AGS00001sv
587739828214759654 AGS00001w5
587741601491517466 AGS00001xa
587741489818697783 AGS00001yl
587741726574444657 AGS000022s
587742627995058239 AGS0000242
587742012747546666 AGS000026x
587742575914582207 AGS000028hNext, DR10 cutouts, 170x170 pix, scale 0.2 "/pix, centered on the catalog (RA, Dec):
Posted
-
by
JeanTate
In addition the above, I have noted another seven QS objects which may be problematic, but I may not have posted them before (actually some have been posted before!):
587725489986469948 AGS000004e
587724234254057637 AGS000008o
587725073917739155 AGS00000an
588007004179660890 AGS00000fq
587726879417172040 AGS00000hm
587728931871522909 AGS00000l1
587729387147427913 AGS00000so
Posted
-
by
JeanTate
There are also seven QC objects that have been noted as problematic ('outliers') before:
587736619320213712 AGS00002o8
587742551211769895 AGS00002vf
587736541487628399 AGS000031r
587739115244748811 AGS00003ag
587745539440771084 AGS00003nh
587736813672792218 AGS00003xb
587727222471590131 AGS00004h4
Posted
-
by
trouille
scientist, moderator, admin
Awesome!!!!!! OK, so, now could you possibly go through and split these 32+7 into why each one is problematic? If you could group objects under their 'Reason for being Problematic', that might be the easiest way to digest the information.
Posted
-
by
JeanTate
in response to trouille's comment.
Thanks.
Yes, that was the plan (in fact I've already got a first-pass scheme, which - broadly - splits problems as being due to the photometry or the spectroscopy (or both)).
And I'm working with zutopian on identifying any others which we may have missed.
Posted
-
by
zutopian
QS contamination by star:
AGS0000044
AGS000006v
AGS000007f
AGS000008x
AGS00000b8
AGS00000e9
AGS00000js
AGS00000jt
AGS00000rc
AGS00000xd
AGS00000y2 listed in Outliers summary; Also in the Wong et al sample
AGS00000gf
AGS00001f7
AGS00001j3
AGS00001l4
AGS00001la
AGS00001uc
AGS000026p
AGS00000dk
AGS000005g
AGS00001hr star has also a spectrum
AGS000029w
AGS000009f
AGS00000gg
AGS00000hn
AGS00000jq
AGS00001c8
AGS00001ry
AGS00001xi
AGS0000212
AGS00002ab
AGS000008i
AGS00000d6
AGS00001it
AGS00001kg
AGS00001sf
AGS00000cz star has also a spectrum
AGS00000ym
AGS00001x1
AGS00001x5
AGS00000yn
AGS00000zu
AGS00001mx
AGS00001w3
AGS000003j
AGS00000gs
AGS00000x6
AGS0000198
AGS000015m
AGS00000ag
AGS000008t
AGS00000zi
AGS00000uq
AGS00001dz
AGS00001g0
AGS000020f
AGS0000294
AGS000020v
AGS000028a
AGS00000lu
AGS000007c
AGS00000iu
AGS00001vw
AGS000025u
AGS000026b
AGS00001q9PS: I posted these also in the "Outliers-Collect here!" topic at the same time.
Posted
-
by
zutopian
I had done following comment in the "Outliers-Summary" topic.:
From Goto's paper:
These criteria nicely remove contamination from nearby stars and star-forming regions.
(..)
Our criteria are more strict than previous ones (e.g.,...), suppressing possible contaminations from other populations of galaxies (Goto 2004).http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1106
Posted
-
by
zutopian
QS galaxies: H-alpha line is missing.:
AGS000003c listed in the 1st post in this topic
AGS000014f
AGS0000226Posted
-
by
zutopian
QC galaxies:
AGS00002j8 Spectrum is incomplete.: No data after 6200.
AGS000040k H-alpha line is missing.
AGS000044x H-alpha line is missing.Posted
-
by
zutopian
I noticed, that some galaxies e.g. AGS0000090 have however velDisp=0. Is this problematic?
Posted
-
by
mlpeck
I noticed, that some galaxies e.g. AGS0000090 have however velDisp=0.
Is this problematic?Not really. The spectra are stored with a wavelength interval equivalent to ~ 69 km/sec, and a stellar velocity dispersion less than about 100 km/sec is considered unreliable.
Also, none of the citizen scientists have attempted any analysis involving velocity dispersions and none have been suggested as far as I can remember.
Posted