Galaxy Zoo Talk

Updates in GZ-CANDELS data

  • vrooje by vrooje admin, scientist

    Hi all,

    Recently I amassed a list of galaxies that you marked here on Talk with tags like #toofainttoclassify. I used these as tracers to find the objects in GZ-CANDELS that are so faint and barely classifiable that the classifications we already have are almost certainly good enough. I went over the list with the rest of the science team and we agreed that we'd declare those objects "done" so they stop appearing on the site for active classifications. I expected this would take the development team at least a few days to implement, but they've surpassed my expectations again and have already done this! I can't promise we've got them all, but the really faint stuff should show up less frequently now.

    At the same time we also decided to prioritise the rest of the CANDELS images so you may be seeing these most distant galaxies in our sample more often than before. We want to get these classified as soon as we can because we want to get working on the science of high-redshift galaxies right away!

    Cheers,
    -Brooke

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate

    Great!

    Do you have any plans (thoughts?) on what to do with these exceedingly faint objects? While they may be too hard to classify, morphologically, presumably there are other analyses you can do on them.

    In your analysis, did you cross-check the #toofainttoclassify with #FHB? Myself, I stopped using the former hashtag some time ago, and classified these faint objects using the latter.

    Also, will it be possible to see if the #toofainttoclassify objects are special in terms of how often they were also classified as being somehow related to mergers?

    Posted

  • vrooje by vrooje admin, scientist

    I did use the #FHB tag as well; it was really useful.

    For now I think the plan is to delve into the classifications and see exactly what they tell us. Because these objects are really faint it means that we aren't likely to need the numbers of classifications per object required to really understand the more detailed morphologies that are evident with brighter objects, but of course there is still a lot of useful information in the classifications we already have. I think the merger question in particular could be interesting. So your third question will probably turn out to be part of the answer to your first!

    Posted