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

issue/591/triaxiality: Build scripts in examples/triaxiality #603

Open
wants to merge 94 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

shenmingfu
Copy link
Collaborator

@shenmingfu shenmingfu commented Jul 18, 2023

@shenmingfu shenmingfu changed the title built a folder examples/triaxiality, added a readme file inside Build scripts in examples/triaxiality Jul 18, 2023
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jul 18, 2023

Coverage Status

coverage: 100.0%. remained the same when pulling f2da93b on issue/591/triaxiality into c6cf806 on main.

@shenmingfu shenmingfu changed the title Build scripts in examples/triaxiality issue/591/triaxiality: Build scripts in examples/triaxiality Jul 18, 2023
@akumgill akumgill self-assigned this Jul 19, 2023
akumgill and others added 19 commits July 19, 2023 14:23
Comparison of Tae's and Adhikari's implementations of quadrupole and monopole components
Includes fitting for orientation of halo and ellipticity simultaneously.
@rancesol rancesol marked this pull request as ready for review July 29, 2024 13:45
@combet
Copy link
Collaborator

combet commented Jan 15, 2025

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 eval_excess_surface_density_triaxial in parent_class.py in the theory module. However, I do not see a corresponding compute_excess_surface_density_triaxial function in the functional interface (func_layer.py).

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

Comment on lines 128 to 129
If `True`, the quadrupole shear components (g_4theta, g_const; Shin+2018) are calculated
instead of g_t and g_x
Copy link
Collaborator

@combet combet Jan 15, 2025

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?

Copy link
Collaborator

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!

@rancesol
Copy link
Collaborator

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.

@rancesol
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @combet, thanks for the comments. They've both been resolved now.

clmm/__init__.py Outdated
Comment on lines 27 to 32
from .theory.func_layer import (
compute_delta_sigma_4theta_triaxiality,
compute_delta_sigma_const_triaxiality,
compute_delta_sigma_excess_triaxiality,
)

Copy link
Collaborator

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 )

Copy link
Collaborator

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.

@combet
Copy link
Collaborator

combet commented Jan 24, 2025

Hi - I added a notebook examples/triaxiality/clmm_triax_test_cc showing the issue I mentioned regarding the measurement of the quadrupole with celestial coordinates. The markdown should be self-explanatory, but let me know if something is unclear. @rkrishnan2912, @shenmingfu, @rancesol, @tae-h-shin

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants