Estimation of high-resolution dust column density maps. Comparison of modified black-body fits and radiative transfer modelling

TL;DR

This study compares two methods for estimating high-resolution dust column density maps from sub-millimetre observations, evaluating their accuracy against radiative transfer models using simulated data.

Contribution

It introduces and assesses two approaches for deriving high-resolution column density maps, highlighting their relative strengths and limitations in different observational scenarios.

Findings

Method B correlates better with true column density at high S/N.

Method A is more robust to noise and can sometimes yield more accurate results.

Radiative transfer modelling provides more precise estimates but is computationally complex.

Abstract

Sub-millimetre dust emission is often used to derive the column density N of dense interstellar clouds. The observations consist of data at several wavelengths but of variable resolution. We examine two procedures that been proposed for the estimation of high resolution N maps. Method A uses a low-resolution temperature map combined with higher resolution intensity data while Method B combines N estimates from different wavelength ranges. Our aim is to determine the accuracy of the methods relative to the true column densities and the estimates obtainable with radiative transfer modelling. We use magnetohydrodynamical (MHD) simulations and radiative transfer calculations to simulate sub-millimetre observations at the wavelengths of the Herschel Space Observatory. The observations are analysed with the methods and the results compared to the true values and to the results from radiative transfer modelling of observations. Both methods A and B give relatively reliable column density estimates at the resolution of 250um data while also making use of the longer wavelengths. For high signal-to-noise data, the results of Method B are better correlated with the true column density, while Method A is less sensitive to noise. When the cloud has internal heating, results of Method B are consistent with those that would be obtained with high-resolution data. Because of line-of-sight temperature variations, these underestimate the true column density and, because of a favourable cancellation of errors, Method A can sometimes give more correct values. Radiative transfer modelling, even with very simple 3D cloud models, can provide better results. However, the complexity of the models required for improvements increases rapidly with the complexity and opacity of the clouds.