search

PAHFIT / pahfit

Model Decomposition for Near- to Mid-Infrared Spectroscopy of Astronomical Sources
https://pahfit.readthedocs.io/
18 stars 26 forks source link

ISO-SWS Pack files #215

Closed Ameek-Sidhu closed 1 year ago

Ameek-Sidhu commented 2 years ago

ISO-SWS pack files in ipac and yaml format. There are two ipac tables, one for the spectral resolution = 1600, and the other for the spectral resolution=500. The yaml file is the one created based on @jdtsmith's PR #210. Please review this and let us (me and @BethanyRS) know, if it looks good.

jancami commented 2 years ago

Looks good to me!

jdtsmith commented 2 years ago

This looks very clean, thanks. We should probably decide on a nomenclature for lines. I think name_lam where lam is the wavelength to 0.1µm should suffice. We'll have to be typing these in quite a bit to pull them out of tables, so the full spectroscopic terms are a bit cumbersome. What do others think?

I've also been thinking about how we name/brand science packs. Since in principle our science packs are resolution-independent, we probably shouldn't name them/target-them for single instruments. But them how to name them? PAHFIT Classic is self-explanatory.

jdtsmith commented 2 years ago

Also, for the leading comments, we should come up with some reasonable nomenclature and a pointer to the docs, like Jan did for the iso instrument pack.

Ameek-Sidhu commented 2 years ago

Regarding the names for the lines, @els1 also suggested using name_lam. I will update the file. For the name of the file, would PDR_science_pack_file work?

jdtsmith commented 2 years ago

What do people think? @els1, @jancami, @karllark, @alexmaragko, ... We want the name to be, as Einstein said, as simple as possible, but no simpler.

els1 commented 2 years ago

Regarding the name of the file, I suggest PDR_pack. The fact it is called 'PDR' indicates it is a science pack. Also, 'pack' and 'file' seems a duplicate.

Ameek-Sidhu commented 2 years ago

Updated the yaml file. I have changed the names of the lines following the convention name_lam and have renamed the file to PDR_pack.yml.

els1 commented 2 years ago

This looks very clean, thanks. We should probably decide on a nomenclature for lines. I think name_lam where lam is the wavelength to 0.1µm should suffice. We'll have to be typing these in quite a bit to pull them out of tables, so the full spectroscopic terms are a bit cumbersome. What do others think?

I've also been thinking about how we name/brand science packs. Since in principle our science packs are resolution-independent, we probably shouldn't name them/target-them for single instruments. But them how to name them? PAHFIT Classic is self-explanatory.

As @Ameek-Sidhu pointed out, for some lines you will need more then 0.1µm accuracy due to blending. I suggested to use 0.1µm as default and where needed, add additional numbers.

drvdputt commented 1 year ago

The PDR pack is invalid because there is a duplicate line: H2_Q(1) appears twice. Perhaps it should be H2_O(1)?

Ameek-Sidhu commented 1 year ago

The PDR pack is invalid because there is a duplicate line: H2_Q(1) appears twice. Perhaps it should be H2_O(1)?

There was an error in the line name. It is indeed H2_Q(1) line but for a different vibrational level. Since, we decided not to enter the names of vibrational levels, I was supposed to write the first two letters of the line in case of duplication, which I forgot in this case. I have it fixed it now though.

jdtsmith commented 1 year ago

Closing, as I think this work should be subsumed into the pdr.yaml pack we've talked about. @Ameek-Sidhu if you want to start that with your PDR_PACK, can you submit that as a standalone PR to the dev branch (though I'd call it simply pdr.yaml)?

It's also possible @drvdputt is already internally working with such a pack, so perhaps we can use a simple distillation between your two efforts to get that file started. Main differences from gal.yaml (also TBD) are line inclusivity, plus perhaps some wider allowance for PAH feature shape changes (TBD).