adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Differences between Stable and Unstable Architectures of Compact Planetary Systems
Authors: Kathryn Volk, Renu Malhotra
Figure caption: Fraction of surviving simulations vs. time/T 1, where T 1 is the orbital period of the innermost planet in each individual simulation. The simulations are weighted such that all observed systems in each simulation category contribute equally.
Paper: Differences between Stable and Unstable Architectures of Compact Planetary Systems
Authors: Kathryn Volk, Renu Malhotra
Figure caption: All simulations: distribution of period ratios between neighboring planets (top: stacked histogram that sums to the observed number of planet pairs; bottom: normalized cumulative distributions). Note the log scale in the top panel used to better highlight the distribution of the colliding pairs. Colliding planet pairs are shown in orange with the other adjacent planet pairs in those simulations shown in black. Planet pairs in simulations with no collisions are shown in blue. Note that a few percent of the colliding pairs of planets were not adjacent at the start of the simulations.
Paper: Differences between Stable and Unstable Architectures of Compact Planetary Systems
Authors: Kathryn Volk, Renu Malhotra
Figure caption: TTV/RV cases: distribution of mass ratios between neighboring planets in 47 observed planetary system architectures with three or more planets and TTV or RV mass constraints on at least one planet (top: stacked histogram that sums to the observed number of planet pairs; bottom: normalized cumulative distributions). In gray are pairs of planets in system architectures where no collisions occurred within 5 × 109 orbits of the shortest-period planet across 100 instances of that architecture (initial conditions are described in Section 2.2). In pink are planet pairs in system architectures for which at least one of the 100 instances experienced a collision within 5 × 109 inner planet orbits.
Paper: Differences between Stable and Unstable Architectures of Compact Planetary Systems
Authors: Kathryn Volk, Renu Malhotra
Figure caption: MR-relationship cases: distribution of mass ratios between neighboring planets in 162 observed planetary system architectures with three or more planets (top: stacked histogram that sums to the observed number of planet pairs; bottom: normalized cumulative distributions). In gray are pairs of planets in system architectures where no collisions occurred within 5 × 109 orbits of the shortest-period planet across 100 instances of that architecture (initial conditions are described in Section 2.1). In pink are period ratios in system architectures for which at least one of the 100 instances experienced a collision within 5 × 109 inner planet orbits.
Paper: Differences between Stable and Unstable Architectures of Compact Planetary Systems
Authors: Kathryn Volk, Renu Malhotra
Figure caption: All simulations: distribution of mutual hill radius separation (Δ) between neighboring planets (top: stacked histograms that sum to the observed number of planet pairs; bottom: normalized cumulative distributions). Note the log scale in the top panel used to better highlight the distribution of the colliding pairs. Colliding planet pairs are shown in orange with the other adjacent planet pairs in those simulations shown in black. Adjacent planet pairs in simulations with no collisions are shown in blue. Note that a few percent of the colliding pairs of planets were not adjacent at the start of the simulations.
Paper: Differences between Stable and Unstable Architectures of Compact Planetary Systems
Authors: Kathryn Volk, Renu Malhotra
Figure caption: All simulations: fraction of stable simulations as a function of the largest AMD spectral fraction for any planet in that simulation (top) and number of simulations per spectral fraction bin (bottom). Planetary systems without planet pairs starting obviously near strong MMRs (systems with MMRs labeled as 0 or 2 in Table 2) are shown as blue dots, while those that are likely in or near resonance are shown as red squares (systems with MMRs labeled as 1 in Table 2). These plots include all simulations performed (whether the planets masses were assigned from the mass–radius relationship or from TTV/RV measurements) that survived for at least 106 orbits, the minimum time span to perform a useful FFT.
Paper: Differences between Stable and Unstable Architectures of Compact Planetary Systems
Authors: Kathryn Volk, Renu Malhotra
Figure caption: All simulations: average simulation stopping time (in units of innermost planet orbital periods) vs. maximum AMD spectral fraction for systems not obviously near MMRs (blue dots) and those that are likely resonant or near-resonant (red squares). The standard deviation of the simulation lengths in each spectral fraction bin are shown with black error bars, except for the right-most three bins, which only have one simulation per bin. Note that the two sets of data points are artificially offset on the horizontal axis to better differentiate the points. Simulations ran until 5 × 109 orbits of the innermost planet (gray horizontal line) or until two planets collided.
Paper: Differences between Stable and Unstable Architectures of Compact Planetary Systems
Authors: Kathryn Volk, Renu Malhotra
Figure caption: All simulations: distribution of mass ratios between neighboring planets (top: stacked histogram weighted to the observed number of planet pairs; bottom: normalized cumulative distributions). Note the log scale in the top panel used to better highlight the distribution of the colliding pairs. Colliding planet pairs are shown in orange with the other adjacent planet pairs in those simulations shown in black. Planet pairs in simulations with no collisions are shown in blue. Note that a few percent of the colliding pairs of planets were not adjacent at the start of the simulations.
Paper: Differences between Stable and Unstable Architectures of Compact Planetary Systems
Authors: Kathryn Volk, Renu Malhotra
Figure caption: Cumulative distributions of maximum AMD spectral fractions.
Paper: Differences between Stable and Unstable Architectures of Compact Planetary Systems
Authors: Kathryn Volk, Renu Malhotra
Figure caption: MR-relationship cases: fraction of stable simulations as a function of the coefficient of variation for the masses of the planets in each simulation (top) and number of simulations per bin in that coefficient (bottom).
Paper:  ethraid: A Simple Method for Characterizing Long-period Companions Using Doppler, Astrometric, and Imaging Constraints
Authors: Judah Van Zandt, Erik A Petigura
Figure caption: Left: A diagram of the circular, face-on orbit we use to understand the behavior of the astrometry posterior. The black circle shows the orbit of the host star about the system barycenter due to a companion at wide separation (≳20 au). Solid and dotted arrows show the average stellar position and proper motion vectors, respectively, in each of the Hipparcos, HG, and Gaia EDR3 epochs. θ HG gives the position angle at the HG epoch relative to the position angle during the Hipparcos epoch. In the long-period regime, using the small-angle approximation for θ HG is appropriate. Right: A similar diagram for short periods (≲2 au). Arrows t 1 and t 2 show the position of the host star at the beginning and end of the Gaia EDR3 data collection window. We chose t 2's position arbitrarily to illustrate that, for short periods, the angle between the two position vectors is not small, but rather can take any value on [0, 2π]. We do not show the analogous vectors for  μ  HG because T HG is nearly nine times the duration of T G; this larger denominator drives  μ  HG to nearly zero for short-period orbits.
Paper:  ethraid: A Simple Method for Characterizing Long-period Companions Using Doppler, Astrometric, and Imaging Constraints
Authors: Judah Van Zandt, Erik A Petigura
Figure caption: Left: The posterior surface calculated from astrometric data. The red line follows the relationship m  c  ∝ a −1, while the green line follows m  c  ∝ a 2. Right: The short-period regime of the surface at left. Iso-period lines are shown in red: the right-most line traces P = T G ∼ 2.83 yr, the next follows ﹩P=\tfrac{{T}_{{\rm{G}}}}{2}﹩, then ﹩P=\tfrac{{T}_{{\rm{G}}}}{3}﹩, and so on. High-likelihood models near these periods must have large companion masses to counter the small net displacement of the star. The same effect can be seen at harmonics of the ∼25 yr Hipparcos–Gaia baseline (∼4–16 au), though it is less pronounced because  μ   G  remains nonzero in this regime even when  μ  HG vanishes.
Paper:  ethraid: A Simple Method for Characterizing Long-period Companions Using Doppler, Astrometric, and Imaging Constraints
Authors: Judah Van Zandt, Erik A Petigura
Figure caption: Left: An RV posterior calculated using both ﹩\dot{\gamma }﹩ and ﹩\ddot{\gamma }﹩. The blue line follows the relationship m  c  ∝ a 2, while the red line follows m  c  ∝ a 7/2. Right: An RV posterior calculated using ﹩\ddot{\gamma }﹩ only, with a host star of 1 M ⊙. In the low-mass regime, the posterior follows m  c  ∝ a 7/2. However, the slope shifts to m  c  ∝ a 7/3 near 1 M ⊙.
Paper: 89 New Ultracool Dwarf Comoving Companions Identified with the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 Citizen Science Project
Authors: Austin Rothermich, Jacqueline K. Faherty, Daniella Bardalez-Gagliuffi, Adam C. Schneider, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, Aaron M. Meisner, Adam J. Burgasser, Marc Kuchner, Katelyn Allers, Jonathan Gagné, Dan Caselden, Emily Calamari, Mark Popinchalk, Genaro Suárez, Roman Gerasimov, Christian Aganze, Emma Softich, Chin-Chun Hsu, Preethi Karpoor, Christopher A. Theissen, Jon Rees, Rosario Cecilio-Flores-Elie, Michael C. Cushing, Federico Marocco, Sarah Casewell, Thomas P. Bickle, Les Hamlet, Michaela B. Allen, Paul Beaulieu, Guillaume Colin, Jean Marc Gantier, Leopold Gramaize, Peter Jalowiczor, Martin Kabatnik, Frank Kiwy, David W. Martin, Billy Pendrill, Ben Pumphrey, Arttu Sainio, Jorg Schumann, Nikolaj Stevnbak, Guoyou Sun, Christopher Tanner, Vinod Thakur, Melina Thevenot, Zbigniew Wedracki
Figure caption: Near-infrared spectra of the companion components plotted in black. Overplotted in color are the spectral standards as described in Section 5. All spectra are normalized between 1.27 and 1.29 μm and separated by a constant. Spectra obtained with: SpeX—CW0205+5944, CW0224+1526, CW0620+3446, CW0627–0028, CW0738+5254, CW0943+3356, CW1015–1115, CW1037–0507, CW1303+5127, CW1304–1200, CW1313+2230, CW1328–0637, CW1417+0418, CW1439+2600, CW1527–1215, CW1745+3807, CW2003–1422, CW2141–0246, CW2214–0246, and CW2318+0521; NIRES—CW0227+0830, CW0555+5105, CW0626+5941, CW1625+7749, and CW1717+7244; FIRE—CW1040–3550, CW1959–6443, and CW2335+0142; Triplespec—CW1606; NIHTS—CW0657+1633; and ArcoIRIS—CW2029–7910.
Paper: 89 New Ultracool Dwarf Comoving Companions Identified with the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 Citizen Science Project
Authors: Austin Rothermich, Jacqueline K. Faherty, Daniella Bardalez-Gagliuffi, Adam C. Schneider, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, Aaron M. Meisner, Adam J. Burgasser, Marc Kuchner, Katelyn Allers, Jonathan Gagné, Dan Caselden, Emily Calamari, Mark Popinchalk, Genaro Suárez, Roman Gerasimov, Christian Aganze, Emma Softich, Chin-Chun Hsu, Preethi Karpoor, Christopher A. Theissen, Jon Rees, Rosario Cecilio-Flores-Elie, Michael C. Cushing, Federico Marocco, Sarah Casewell, Thomas P. Bickle, Les Hamlet, Michaela B. Allen, Paul Beaulieu, Guillaume Colin, Jean Marc Gantier, Leopold Gramaize, Peter Jalowiczor, Martin Kabatnik, Frank Kiwy, David W. Martin, Billy Pendrill, Ben Pumphrey, Arttu Sainio, Jorg Schumann, Nikolaj Stevnbak, Guoyou Sun, Christopher Tanner, Vinod Thakur, Melina Thevenot, Zbigniew Wedracki
Figure caption: Gaia color vs. logarithm of rotation period for host stars with observed light curves (pointed stars, squares, and circles). For age comparison, host stars are plotted against the 650 Myr Praesepe (Douglas et al. 2017; in dark purple), 120 Myr Pleiades (Rebull et al. 2016; lighter purple), and 40 Myr Tucana–Horologium (Popinchalk et al. 2023; lightest purple) groups.
Paper: 89 New Ultracool Dwarf Comoving Companions Identified with the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 Citizen Science Project
Authors: Austin Rothermich, Jacqueline K. Faherty, Daniella Bardalez-Gagliuffi, Adam C. Schneider, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, Aaron M. Meisner, Adam J. Burgasser, Marc Kuchner, Katelyn Allers, Jonathan Gagné, Dan Caselden, Emily Calamari, Mark Popinchalk, Genaro Suárez, Roman Gerasimov, Christian Aganze, Emma Softich, Chin-Chun Hsu, Preethi Karpoor, Christopher A. Theissen, Jon Rees, Rosario Cecilio-Flores-Elie, Michael C. Cushing, Federico Marocco, Sarah Casewell, Thomas P. Bickle, Les Hamlet, Michaela B. Allen, Paul Beaulieu, Guillaume Colin, Jean Marc Gantier, Leopold Gramaize, Peter Jalowiczor, Martin Kabatnik, Frank Kiwy, David W. Martin, Billy Pendrill, Ben Pumphrey, Arttu Sainio, Jorg Schumann, Nikolaj Stevnbak, Guoyou Sun, Christopher Tanner, Vinod Thakur, Melina Thevenot, Zbigniew Wedracki
Figure caption: Optical spectra of the primary components plotted in black. Overplotted in color are the spectral standards. All spectra were normalized between 7499 and 7501 Å nd separated by a constant. All spectra in the left plot were obtained with SALT. Spectra in the middle and right plots were obtained with Lick/Kast.
Paper: 89 New Ultracool Dwarf Comoving Companions Identified with the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 Citizen Science Project
Authors: Austin Rothermich, Jacqueline K. Faherty, Daniella Bardalez-Gagliuffi, Adam C. Schneider, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, Aaron M. Meisner, Adam J. Burgasser, Marc Kuchner, Katelyn Allers, Jonathan Gagné, Dan Caselden, Emily Calamari, Mark Popinchalk, Genaro Suárez, Roman Gerasimov, Christian Aganze, Emma Softich, Chin-Chun Hsu, Preethi Karpoor, Christopher A. Theissen, Jon Rees, Rosario Cecilio-Flores-Elie, Michael C. Cushing, Federico Marocco, Sarah Casewell, Thomas P. Bickle, Les Hamlet, Michaela B. Allen, Paul Beaulieu, Guillaume Colin, Jean Marc Gantier, Leopold Gramaize, Peter Jalowiczor, Martin Kabatnik, Frank Kiwy, David W. Martin, Billy Pendrill, Ben Pumphrey, Arttu Sainio, Jorg Schumann, Nikolaj Stevnbak, Guoyou Sun, Christopher Tanner, Vinod Thakur, Melina Thevenot, Zbigniew Wedracki
Figure caption: Near-infrared spectra of the primary components plotted in black. Overplotted in color are the spectral standards. All spectra were normalized between 1.27 and 1.29 μm and separated by a constant. Spectra obtained with: NIRES—G 192–8, CW1717+7749, LP 389–13, and LSPM J2052+0539; SpeX—CW0619+3446 and CW1304–1200; and ArcoIRIS—SCR 2029–7910.
Paper: 89 New Ultracool Dwarf Comoving Companions Identified with the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 Citizen Science Project
Authors: Austin Rothermich, Jacqueline K. Faherty, Daniella Bardalez-Gagliuffi, Adam C. Schneider, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, Aaron M. Meisner, Adam J. Burgasser, Marc Kuchner, Katelyn Allers, Jonathan Gagné, Dan Caselden, Emily Calamari, Mark Popinchalk, Genaro Suárez, Roman Gerasimov, Christian Aganze, Emma Softich, Chin-Chun Hsu, Preethi Karpoor, Christopher A. Theissen, Jon Rees, Rosario Cecilio-Flores-Elie, Michael C. Cushing, Federico Marocco, Sarah Casewell, Thomas P. Bickle, Les Hamlet, Michaela B. Allen, Paul Beaulieu, Guillaume Colin, Jean Marc Gantier, Leopold Gramaize, Peter Jalowiczor, Martin Kabatnik, Frank Kiwy, David W. Martin, Billy Pendrill, Ben Pumphrey, Arttu Sainio, Jorg Schumann, Nikolaj Stevnbak, Guoyou Sun, Christopher Tanner, Vinod Thakur, Melina Thevenot, Zbigniew Wedracki
Figure caption: Top: TESS-extracted light curve of CW0256–3350 from TESS Sectors 30 (shown in blue) and 31 (shown in red). A flare can be seen in TESS Sector 31 at day ∼ 45. Bottom left: cutout image of the TESS FOV around CW0256–3350. Bottom center: Lomb–Scargle periodogram for the light curve of CW0256–3350, showing a rotation period of 0.81 days. Bottom right: phase-folded light curve for CW0256–3350.
Paper: 89 New Ultracool Dwarf Comoving Companions Identified with the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 Citizen Science Project
Authors: Austin Rothermich, Jacqueline K. Faherty, Daniella Bardalez-Gagliuffi, Adam C. Schneider, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, Aaron M. Meisner, Adam J. Burgasser, Marc Kuchner, Katelyn Allers, Jonathan Gagné, Dan Caselden, Emily Calamari, Mark Popinchalk, Genaro Suárez, Roman Gerasimov, Christian Aganze, Emma Softich, Chin-Chun Hsu, Preethi Karpoor, Christopher A. Theissen, Jon Rees, Rosario Cecilio-Flores-Elie, Michael C. Cushing, Federico Marocco, Sarah Casewell, Thomas P. Bickle, Les Hamlet, Michaela B. Allen, Paul Beaulieu, Guillaume Colin, Jean Marc Gantier, Leopold Gramaize, Peter Jalowiczor, Martin Kabatnik, Frank Kiwy, David W. Martin, Billy Pendrill, Ben Pumphrey, Arttu Sainio, Jorg Schumann, Nikolaj Stevnbak, Guoyou Sun, Christopher Tanner, Vinod Thakur, Melina Thevenot, Zbigniew Wedracki
Figure caption: Separation vs. mass ratio for all systems in this sample as yellow pointed stars. Shown for comparison are Gaia stellar binaries, as well as exoplanets color coded by discovery method as listed on the Exoplanet Archive.
Paper: 89 New Ultracool Dwarf Comoving Companions Identified with the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 Citizen Science Project
Authors: Austin Rothermich, Jacqueline K. Faherty, Daniella Bardalez-Gagliuffi, Adam C. Schneider, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, Aaron M. Meisner, Adam J. Burgasser, Marc Kuchner, Katelyn Allers, Jonathan Gagné, Dan Caselden, Emily Calamari, Mark Popinchalk, Genaro Suárez, Roman Gerasimov, Christian Aganze, Emma Softich, Chin-Chun Hsu, Preethi Karpoor, Christopher A. Theissen, Jon Rees, Rosario Cecilio-Flores-Elie, Michael C. Cushing, Federico Marocco, Sarah Casewell, Thomas P. Bickle, Les Hamlet, Michaela B. Allen, Paul Beaulieu, Guillaume Colin, Jean Marc Gantier, Leopold Gramaize, Peter Jalowiczor, Martin Kabatnik, Frank Kiwy, David W. Martin, Billy Pendrill, Ben Pumphrey, Arttu Sainio, Jorg Schumann, Nikolaj Stevnbak, Guoyou Sun, Christopher Tanner, Vinod Thakur, Melina Thevenot, Zbigniew Wedracki
Figure caption: Mass ratio vs. binding energy for all systems in this sample, shown as yellow pointed stars. Shown for comparison are Gaia stellar binaries, as well as exoplanets color coded by discovery method as listed on the Exoplanet Archive. CW2335+0142 is labeled, along with COCONUTS-2b for reference.
Paper: 89 New Ultracool Dwarf Comoving Companions Identified with the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 Citizen Science Project
Authors: Austin Rothermich, Jacqueline K. Faherty, Daniella Bardalez-Gagliuffi, Adam C. Schneider, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, Aaron M. Meisner, Adam J. Burgasser, Marc Kuchner, Katelyn Allers, Jonathan Gagné, Dan Caselden, Emily Calamari, Mark Popinchalk, Genaro Suárez, Roman Gerasimov, Christian Aganze, Emma Softich, Chin-Chun Hsu, Preethi Karpoor, Christopher A. Theissen, Jon Rees, Rosario Cecilio-Flores-Elie, Michael C. Cushing, Federico Marocco, Sarah Casewell, Thomas P. Bickle, Les Hamlet, Michaela B. Allen, Paul Beaulieu, Guillaume Colin, Jean Marc Gantier, Leopold Gramaize, Peter Jalowiczor, Martin Kabatnik, Frank Kiwy, David W. Martin, Billy Pendrill, Ben Pumphrey, Arttu Sainio, Jorg Schumann, Nikolaj Stevnbak, Guoyou Sun, Christopher Tanner, Vinod Thakur, Melina Thevenot, Zbigniew Wedracki
Figure caption: Host stars with Gaia DR3 RUWE values >1.4 shown as green stars, plotted against the Gaia DR3 30 pc sample.
Paper: 89 New Ultracool Dwarf Comoving Companions Identified with the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 Citizen Science Project
Authors: Austin Rothermich, Jacqueline K. Faherty, Daniella Bardalez-Gagliuffi, Adam C. Schneider, J. Davy Kirkpatrick, Aaron M. Meisner, Adam J. Burgasser, Marc Kuchner, Katelyn Allers, Jonathan Gagné, Dan Caselden, Emily Calamari, Mark Popinchalk, Genaro Suárez, Roman Gerasimov, Christian Aganze, Emma Softich, Chin-Chun Hsu, Preethi Karpoor, Christopher A. Theissen, Jon Rees, Rosario Cecilio-Flores-Elie, Michael C. Cushing, Federico Marocco, Sarah Casewell, Thomas P. Bickle, Les Hamlet, Michaela B. Allen, Paul Beaulieu, Guillaume Colin, Jean Marc Gantier, Leopold Gramaize, Peter Jalowiczor, Martin Kabatnik, Frank Kiwy, David W. Martin, Billy Pendrill, Ben Pumphrey, Arttu Sainio, Jorg Schumann, Nikolaj Stevnbak, Guoyou Sun, Christopher Tanner, Vinod Thakur, Melina Thevenot, Zbigniew Wedracki
Figure caption: Optical spectra from Lick/Kast of the secondary components plotted in black. Overplotted in color are the spectral standards. All spectra were normalized between 7499 and 7501 Å and separated by a constant.
Paper: Estimating Galaxy Parameters with Self-organizing Maps and the Effect of Missing Data
Authors: Valentina La Torre, Anna Sajina, Andy D. Goulding, Danilo Marchesini, Rachel Bezanson, Alan N. Pearl, Laerte Sodré
Figure caption: Component maps showing each of the 10 input normalized colors across our trained SOM. The color bar indicates the normalized color values.
Paper: Estimating Galaxy Parameters with Self-organizing Maps and the Effect of Missing Data
Authors: Valentina La Torre, Anna Sajina, Andy D. Goulding, Danilo Marchesini, Rachel Bezanson, Alan N. Pearl, Laerte Sodré
Figure caption: The σ NMAD for estimated z phot as a function of missing bands. Stars represent the cases when the missing bands are omitted from the SOM training. Squares represent the cases when the SOM is trained on the complete data, and data sets with missing data are projected onto it using the missing color recovery method described in Section 4.5. The horizontal dashed line indicates the σ NMAD = 0.026 achieved using all bands (see Figure 7).
Paper: Estimating Galaxy Parameters with Self-organizing Maps and the Effect of Missing Data
Authors: Valentina La Torre, Anna Sajina, Andy D. Goulding, Danilo Marchesini, Rachel Bezanson, Alan N. Pearl, Laerte Sodré
Figure caption: The true simulated vs. SOM-derived parameter values in the more realistic case including photometric errors. These are based on the K  s -selected test data set. The solid red line indicates the bisection line; the red dashed lines show the boundaries of the outlier. The number of objects is 227,365. Approximately 2% of objects are lost because of invalid values from the log.
Paper: Estimating Galaxy Parameters with Self-organizing Maps and the Effect of Missing Data
Authors: Valentina La Torre, Anna Sajina, Andy D. Goulding, Danilo Marchesini, Rachel Bezanson, Alan N. Pearl, Laerte Sodré
Figure caption: The panels on the left show the normalized likelihood surfaces for two test galaxies: a high-S/N (= 82.3 in g band, m  g  = 23.4) example on top, and a low-S/N (= 4.0 in g band, m  g  = 27.7) example on the bottom, both with true redshifts around z ∼ 1.1–1.2. The rainbow colors correspond to the redshift levels as in Figure 5. The panels on the right show the redshift probability distribution based on these likelihood surfaces. The blue solid line represents the most likely redshift value, z  peak , from the 2D surface. The red solid line represents the true redshift, z sim, while the red dotted line corresponds to the median of redshift, z med, used to label the pixel in which the test galaxy is located. Note that the standard deviation σ std of the distribution is smaller for an higher-S/N test galaxy.
Paper: Estimating Galaxy Parameters with Self-organizing Maps and the Effect of Missing Data
Authors: Valentina La Torre, Anna Sajina, Andy D. Goulding, Danilo Marchesini, Rachel Bezanson, Alan N. Pearl, Laerte Sodré
Figure caption: Left panels: SOM with cells color-coded according to the median of galaxy redshift, normalized stellar mass, normalized SFR, and specific SFR, respectively, from the top to the bottom panel. Right panels: SOM with cells color-coded according to the distribution width 〈δ〉 = 〈84%–16%〉 of the corresponding galaxy parameters on the left side.
Paper: Estimating Galaxy Parameters with Self-organizing Maps and the Effect of Missing Data
Authors: Valentina La Torre, Anna Sajina, Andy D. Goulding, Danilo Marchesini, Rachel Bezanson, Alan N. Pearl, Laerte Sodré
Figure caption: The dark region represents the log of the number of galaxies projected on the SOM when K  s  < 23.5 is applied to the data set. The K  s -limited sample contains 232,118 objects. The rainbow contours represent levels of values of redshift (Figure 4), with redder colors representing higher redshift.