-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
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
issue/591/triaxiality: Build scripts in examples/triaxiality #603
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
... using equations 31-38 from Tae-hyeon's paper (https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/475/2/2421/4788804)
... also adding const plots
Comparison of Tae's and Adhikari's implementations of quadrupole and monopole components
Includes fitting for orientation of halo and ellipticity simultaneously.
Hi - I was looking at this branch as I was attempting to summarize all the new function names/functionalities for the v2.0 paper. I understand that the main function for the prediction of the quadrupole components is in If memory serves, the theory module was originally designed to have a “mirror” implementation in the functional interface (func.py) and in the object-oriented interface (parent_class.py). See e.g, the 2 theory demo notebooks (eval_* methods of the CLMM modeling class all have a corresponding compute_* function in the functional interface). I'd be tempted to say we should try to keep this when developing new functionalities. What do you think? @shenmingfu, @rancesol, @tae-h-shin, @rkrishnan2912, @m-aguena, @marina-ricci |
clmm/dataops/__init__.py
Outdated
If `True`, the quadrupole shear components (g_4theta, g_const; Shin+2018) are calculated | ||
instead of g_t and g_x |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From what I see in the code, that case returns the quadrupole components as well as g_t, g_x, not instead. Or I am missing something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You are correct. I remember this was a last minute change -- we just forgot to edit the description. Thanks for catching that!
Hi @combet , I agree on the naming scheme between the parent_class and func_layer. We had ensured that functionally they were identical but how they are called differs. We will correct this as soon as possible. |
Hi @combet, thanks for the comments. They've both been resolved now. |
clmm/__init__.py
Outdated
from .theory.func_layer import ( | ||
compute_delta_sigma_4theta_triaxiality, | ||
compute_delta_sigma_const_triaxiality, | ||
compute_delta_sigma_excess_triaxiality, | ||
) | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rancesol - These functions do not exist anymore after your last commit (--> single function compute_excess_surface_density_triaxial
instead )
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, I missed that file. Should be fixed now.
Hi - I added a notebook |
#591