Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Identification of molecular clouds in emission maps: a comparison between methods in the ce{¹³CO}/ce{C¹⁸O} (J=3-2) Heterodyne Inner Milky Way Plane Survey

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.07874 v1 pith:HBFIWN6B submitted 2023-05-13 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

Identification of molecular clouds in emission maps: a comparison between methods in the ce{¹³CO}/ce{C¹⁸O} (J=3-2) Heterodyne Inner Milky Way Plane Survey

classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords cloudsdifferentmethodsmolecularsurveyalgorithmsbiaseschimps
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The growing range of automated algorithms for the identification of molecular clouds and clumps in large observational datasets has prompted the need for the direct comparison of these procedures. However, these methods are complex and testing for biases is often problematic: only a few of them have been applied to the same data set or calibrated against a common standard. We compare the Fellwalker method, a widely used watershed algorithm, to the more recent Spectral Clustering for Interstellar Molecular Emission Segmentation (SCIMES). SCIMES overcomes sensitivity and resolution biases that plague many friends-of-friends algorithms by recasting cloud segmentation as a clustering problem. Considering the \ce{^{13}CO}/\ce{C^{18}O} ($J = 3 - 2$) Heterodyne Inner Milky Way Plane Survey (CHIMPS) and the CO High-Resolution Survey (COHRS), we investigate how these two different approaches influence the final cloud decomposition. Although the two methods produce largely similar statistical results over the CHIMPS dataset, FW appears prone to over-segmentation, especially in crowded fields where gas envelopes around dense cores are identified as adjacent, distinct objects. FW catalogue also includes a number of fragmented clouds that appear as different objects in a line-of-sight projection. In addition, cross-correlating the physical properties of individual sources between catalogues is complicated by different definitions, numerical implementations, and design choices within each method, which make it very difficult to establish a one-to-one correspondence between the sources.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.