Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Variation in the measured [OIII]5007/[OIII]4959 flux ratio. #196

Open
dirkscholte opened this issue Nov 23, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Variation in the measured [OIII]5007/[OIII]4959 flux ratio. #196

dirkscholte opened this issue Nov 23, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@dirkscholte
Copy link
Member

I found that for some low redshift galaxies the measured [OIII]5007/[OIII]4959 ratio deviates from the theoretical ratio by a small fraction.

The deviation can be seen for a small sample of high S/N [OIII] [LINE]_FLUX measurements:
image

This also seems to be present when using [LINE]_BOXFLUX:
image

@moustakas
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the report @dirkscholte.

@jdbuhler would you be willing to take a look at this issue? I've verified that the MODELAMP [OIII] 5007 / 4959 ratio is the fixed, theoretical 2.993 ratio built into the code:
https://github.com/desihub/fastspecfit/blob/3.1.0/py/fastspecfit/emlines.py#L284

Note that because of the resolution matrix convolution we expect the AMP (observed) ratio to be close to, but not exactly 2.993.

However, since the line-width SIGMA is also an "intrinsic" quantity (i.e., the physical line-width, before the resolution matrix is applied) then we should definitely expect the FLUX ratio to be exactly 2.993, too.

I think the issue is here, where we render the (model) line-profile for each line:
https://github.com/desihub/fastspecfit/blob/3.1.0/py/fastspecfit/emlines.py#L856-L864

This is the line-profile we integrate to compute the (Gaussian) flux, but I think we need the line-profile without the resolution matrix:
https://github.com/desihub/fastspecfit/blob/3.1.0/py/fastspecfit/emlines.py#L811-L840

@dirkscholte
Copy link
Member Author

@moustakas I also realised that I am using a criterium in my selection that only selects sources where [OIII]5007 BOXFLUX and FLUX are similar. So the result in BOXFLUX could be a result of that selection.

@dirkscholte
Copy link
Member Author

@moustakas @jdbuhler I am just adding another figure that John suggested to make. Here still showing the [OIII]5007/[OIII]4959 ratio but now with NARROW_SIGMA on the x-axis.

Which shows a clear trend!
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants