meeting 2024 12 12 n315 - JacobPilawa/TriaxSchwarzschild_wiki_5 GitHub Wiki
Context
- I added a small extension to the MGE B3 test we've been discussing. Specifically, I added 45 models over the same M/L range, but limited the BH search to be [3.4, 3.8] billion solar masses.
- The resulting models look really great, and I think that we're fine to quote actual numbers in the paper for the shift in BH and M/L. The 3sigma contours seem to be fully resolved, and the agreement across K/nu I think is in decent shape. I've added some diagnostics below and am adding the relevant information to the manuscript.
Plots
- First, here are the 1d panels and the 2D scatter showing our current best fit with MGE B1 compared to the results from MGE B3.
| 1d panels | 2d Panel |
|---|---|
| [images/241208/MGEC_grid_241212.png]]](/JacobPilawa/TriaxSchwarzschild_wiki_5/wiki/[[images/241208/2d_scatter_241212.png) |
- And the results from running GPR/dynesty on the models. I've chosen a few different K and nu here, and have vertical plot-style comparison just below.
| K=60 | K=80 | K=100 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| nu=0.5 | [images/241208/MGEC_grid_alpha_K60_nu0.5-1.png]]](/JacobPilawa/TriaxSchwarzschild_wiki_5/wiki/[[images/241208/MGEC_grid_alpha_K80_nu0.5-1.png) | images/241208/MGEC_grid_alpha_K100_nu0.5-1_2.png | |
| nu=1.5 | [images/241208/MGEC_grid_alpha_K60_nu1.5-1.png]]](/JacobPilawa/TriaxSchwarzschild_wiki_5/wiki/[[images/241208/MGEC_grid_alpha_K80_nu1.5-1.png) | images/241208/MGEC_grid_alpha_K100_nu1.5-1_2.png |
- And here's a vertical-style plot comparing these results. As usual, bottom-to-top increases the K we assume, and I switch back and forth between nu = 0.5 and nu = 1.5.
- In the paper, we quote our final results using K = 100, nu = 1.5, and give a preferred value of Mbh = 3.2+/-0.2, and ML = 2.62+/-0.4.
- The MGEC test with the same parameters prefers Mbh of 2.95e9 (+0.13e9)(-0.15e9) and ML of 2.56 (+0.02)(-0.02). Note that, with the rounding that we do, the black hole mass becomes 3.0e9 (+0.11e9)(-0.2e9).
- The net result is that the black hole mass is consistent with our best fit value (though marginal), and the ML value is essentially differing at 1sigma. I don't think this difference is much to lose sleep over.
| Plot |
|---|
| images/241208/MGEC_test.png |
