Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Multiple spectra #58

Open
bd-j opened this issue Jul 21, 2016 · 4 comments
Open

Multiple spectra #58

bd-j opened this issue Jul 21, 2016 · 4 comments

Comments

@bd-j
Copy link
Owner

bd-j commented Jul 21, 2016

Allow for multiple spectra to be fit, potentially sharing some parameters.

@dawnerb
Copy link

dawnerb commented Apr 12, 2022

I'm interested in something like this. We have two things that are well-separated in some photometric bands but hopelessly confused in others, and it would be useful to be able to fit them simultaneously, with the constraint that for the bands where the objects aren't resolved the individual fluxes add up to the total. Any chance of a capability like this being added?

@bd-j
Copy link
Owner Author

bd-j commented Apr 15, 2022

I'm working on multiple spectra/multiple photometry functionality, though it's in the background and at least a month away. But I haven't focused the sharing parameters functionality, which it sounds like you'd need.

I did make an early attempt to do something like what you suggest here:
https://github.com/bd-j/prospector/blob/main/prospect/sources/galaxy_basis.py#L125
but it only works for the parametric SFHs and needs to be documented and updated to work with SpecModel objects.

@bd-j
Copy link
Owner Author

bd-j commented Apr 15, 2022

PS Doing this kind of fit for SFHs beyond the composite/parametric SFHs would really require a more general facility for multi-source simultaneous fitting, which is not currently in the plans; the multiple spectra referred to by this issue was only meant to handle the case of multiple spectra of the same source (sharing physical parameters, but not instrumental parameters)

@dawnerb
Copy link

dawnerb commented Apr 15, 2022

I see, yes, this is for multiple sources. It would be for a very simple SFH for both sources, so I don't think the SFH part would be a big issue at least for what I'm trying to do. I'll check out your link, thanks.

@bd-j bd-j added the v2.0 label Jul 8, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants