Paper detail

Assessing the Performance of Molecular Gas Clump Identification Algorithms

The detection of clumps(cores) in molecular clouds is an important issue in sub-millimetre astronomy. However, the completeness of the identification and the accuracy of the returned parameters of the automated clump identification algorithms are still not clear by now. In this work, we test the performance and bias of the GaussClumps, ClumpFind, Fellwalker, Reinhold, and Dendrograms algorithms in identifying simulated clumps. By designing the simulated clumps with various sizes, peak brightness, and crowdedness, we investigate the characteristics of the algorithms and their performance. In the aspect of detection completeness, Fellwalker, Dendrograms, and Gaussclumps are the first, second, and third best algorithms, respectively. The numbers of correct identifications of the six algorithms gradually increase as the size and SNR of the simulated clumps increase and they decrease as the crowdedness increases. In the aspect of the accuracy of retrieved parameters, Fellwalker and Dendrograms exhibit better performance than the other algorithms. The average deviations in clump parameters for all algorithms gradually increase as the size and SNR of clumps increase. Most of the algorithms except Fellwalker exhibit significant deviation in extracting the total flux of clumps. Taken altogether, Fellwalker, Gaussclumps, and Dendrograms exhibit the best performance in detection completeness and extracting parameters. The deviation in virial parameter for the six algorithms is relatively low. When applying the six algorithms to the clump identification for the Rosette molecular cloud, ClumpFind1994, ClumpFind2006, Gaussclumps, Fellwalker, and Reinhold exhibit performance that is consistent with the results from the simulated test.

preprint2019arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.