BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Nushkia Chamba

Nushkia Chamba contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IMhep-exphysics.ed-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

How to write and develop your astronomy research paper

Writing is a vital component of a modern career in scientific research. But how to write correctly and effectively is often not included in the training that young astronomers receive from their supervisors and departments. We offer a step-by-step guide to tackle this deficiency, published as a set of two papers. In the first, we addressed how to plan and outline your paper and decide where to publish. In the current second paper, we describe the various sections that constitute a typical research paper in astronomy, sharing best practice for the most efficient use of each of them. We also discuss a selection of issues that often cause trouble to writers, from sentence to paragraph structure, the `writing mechanics' used to develop a manuscript. Our two-part guide is aimed primarily at master's and PhD level students who are presented with the daunting task of writing their first scientific paper, but more senior researchers or writing instructors may well find the ideas presented here useful.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Snowmass2021: Vera C. Rubin Observatory as a Flagship Dark Matter Experiment

Establishing that Vera C. Rubin Observatory is a flagship dark matter experiment is an essential pathway toward understanding the physical nature of dark matter. In the past two decades, wide-field astronomical surveys and terrestrial laboratories have jointly created a phase transition in the ecosystem of dark matter models and probes. Going forward, any robust understanding of dark matter requires astronomical observations, which still provide the only empirical evidence for dark matter to date. We have a unique opportunity right now to create a dark matter experiment with Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST). This experiment will be a coordinated effort to perform dark matter research, and provide a large collaborative team of scientists with the necessary organizational and funding supports. This approach leverages existing investments in Rubin. Studies of dark matter with Rubin LSST will also guide the design of, and confirm the results from, other dark matter experiments. Supporting a collaborative team to carry out a dark matter experiment with Rubin LSST is the key to achieving the dark matter science goals that have already been identified as high priority by the high-energy physics and astronomy communities.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A physically motivated definition for the size of galaxies in an era of ultra-deep imaging

Present-day multi-wavelength deep imaging surveys allow to characterise the outskirts of galaxies with unprecedented precision. Taking advantage of this situation, we define a new physically motivated measurement of size for galaxies based on the expected location of the gas density threshold for star formation. Employing both theoretical and observational arguments, we use the stellar mass density contour at 1 $M_{\rm \odot}$ pc$^{-2}$ as a proxy for this density threshold for star formation. This choice makes our size definition operative. With this new size measure, the intrinsic scatter of the global stellar mass ($M_{\rm \star}$) - size relation (explored over five orders of magnitude in stellar mass) decreases to $\sim$0.06 dex. This value is 2.5 times smaller than the scatter measured using the effective radius ($\sim$0.15 dex) and between 1.5 and 1.8 times smaller than those using other traditional size indicators such as $R_{\rm 23.5,i}$ ($\sim$0.09 dex), the Holmberg radius $R_{\rm H}$ ($\sim$0.09 dex) and the half-mass radius $R_{\rm e,M_{\star}}$ ($\sim$0.11 dex). Moreover, galaxies with 10$^7$ $M_{\rm \odot} <$ $M_{\star} < 10^{11}$ $M_{\rm \odot}$ increase monotonically in size following a power-law with a slope very close to 1/3, equivalent to an average stellar mass 3D density of $\sim$4.5$\times$10$^{-3}$ $M_{\rm \odot}$ pc$^{-3}$ for galaxies within this mass range. Galaxies with $M_{\rm \star}$$>$10$^{11}$ $M_{\rm \odot}$ show a different slope with stellar mass, which is suggestive of a larger gas density threshold for star formation at the epoch when their star formation peaks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Are ultra-diffuse galaxies Milky Way-sized?

Now almost 70 years since its introduction, the effective or half-light radius has become a very popular choice for characterising galaxy size. However, the effective radius measures the concentration of light within galaxies and thus does not capture the intuitive definition of size which is related to the edge or boundary of objects. For this reason, we aim to demonstrate the undesirable consequence of using the effective radius to draw conclusions about the nature of faint &#39;ultra-diffuse galaxies&#39; (UDGs) when compared to dwarfs and Milky Way-like galaxies. Instead of the effective radius, we use a measure of galaxy size based on the location of the gas density threshold required for star formation. Compared to the effective radius, this physically motivated definition places the sizes much closer to the boundary of a galaxy. Therefore, considering the sizes and stellar mass density profiles of UDGs and regular dwarfs, we find that the UDGs have sizes that are within the size range of dwarfs. We also show that currently known UDGs do not have sizes comparable to Milky Way-like objects. We find that, on average, UDGs are ten times smaller in extension than Milky Way-like galaxies. These results show that the use of size estimators sensitive to the concentration of light can lead to misleading results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Optimising and comparing source extraction tools using objective segmentation quality criteria

With the growth of the scale, depth, and resolution of astronomical imaging surveys, there is an increased need for highly accurate automated detection and extraction of astronomical sources from images. This also means there is a need for objective quality criteria, and automated methods to optimise parameter settings for these software tools. We present a comparison of several tools which have been developed to perform this task: namely SExtractor, ProFound, NoiseChisel, and MTObjects. In particular, we focus on evaluating performance in situations which present challenges for detection -- for example, faint and diffuse galaxies; extended structures, such as streams; and objects close to bright sources. Furthermore, we develop an automated method to optimise the parameters for the above tools. We present four different objective segmentation quality measures, based on precision, recall, and a new measure for the correctly identified area of sources. Bayesian optimisation is used to find optimal parameter settings for each of the four tools on simulated data, for which a ground truth is known. After training, the tools are tested on similar simulated data, to provide a performance baseline. We then qualitatively assess tool performance on real astronomical images from two different surveys. We determine that when area is disregarded, all four tools are capable of broadly similar levels of detection completeness, while only NoiseChisel and MTObjects are capable of locating the faint outskirts of objects. MTObjects produces the highest scores on all tests on all four quality measures, whilst SExtractor obtains the highest speeds. No tool has sufficient speed and accuracy to be well-suited to large-scale automated segmentation in its current form.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access