TY - JOUR
T1 - Identification of molecular clouds in emission maps
T2 - a comparison between methods in the 13CO/C18O (J = 3–2) Heterodyne Inner Milky Way Plane Survey
AU - Rani, Raffaele
AU - Moore, Toby J.T.
AU - Eden, David J.
AU - Rigby, Andrew J.
AU - Duarte-Cabral, Ana
AU - Lee, Yueh Ning
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s) Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Astronomical Society.
PY - 2023/8/1
Y1 - 2023/8/1
N2 - The growing range of automated algorithms for the identification of molecular clouds and clumps in large observational data sets 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 13CO/C18O (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 oversegmentation, 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.
AB - The growing range of automated algorithms for the identification of molecular clouds and clumps in large observational data sets 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 13CO/C18O (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 oversegmentation, 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.
KW - ISM: clouds
KW - methods: data analysis
KW - molecular data
KW - submillimetre: ISM
KW - surveys
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85161992686&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85161992686&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/mnras/stad1507
DO - 10.1093/mnras/stad1507
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85161992686
SN - 0035-8711
VL - 523
SP - 1832
EP - 1852
JO - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
JF - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
IS - 2
ER -