Friday, June 18, 2010

Princeton Progress

We have some confusing findings from this week. First of all, I re-ran the reconstruction on a smaller angular scale (as both Alexia and Erin told me to do as I was going out to way to large of scales) and got the following for the angular correlation functions:

Close up on a few:

This concerns Alexia and me because first of all they are almost featureless on this degree scale (they look really flat). Second, they seem to move in the wrong direction as a function of redshift bin. We would expect that as we go out further in redshift, the same angular separation would correspond to larger physical separation of objects, and thus the angular correlation should decrease as redshift increases (see below), but we are seeing the opposite.

From Connolly et al. arXiv:astro-ph/0107417v2

Here are the 3D correlation functions:

Here are the photometric and spectroscopic redshift distributions

And the best fit reconstruction, which isn't very good
And I am still getting problems with changing the binning dramatically influencing the reconstruction.

List of things to do:
1. Run my angular correlation function on the same data set as in this paper, and see if I get the same solution.
2. Alexia is running the reconstruction on her data sets to see if she gets the same strange behavior for the correlation functions as a function of redshift.
3. Alexia is going to play with the binning and see if she gets the same strange behavior.
4. I need to come up with another way to do the reconstruction that doesn't involve this lambda/tolerance but minimizes the ximat...

No comments:

Post a Comment