AGN number-density tests #178
Conversation
evevkovacs
commented
Aug 30, 2019
evevkovacs
commented
|
@yymao I am not sure how to deal with the following travis issues: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@evevkovacs, thanks for the PR. The code is long so it may take me sometime to review this. I've relied to your question inline. In the meantime, can you assign someone to do a scientific review?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @evevkovacs, I had a few questions on the test design and output plots. Could you please catch me up on these points? There are also some minor comments on documentation.
| z_lim: [0.3, 2.2] | ||
| observation: 'SDSS' | ||
| validation_range: [15.5, 19.] | ||
| agn_flux_fraction: 0.5 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What motivated the minimum flux fraction of 0.5 here (and also in SDSSi_frac.5)? Is this supposed to be a comparison with the duty cycle model?
| @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ | |||
| # RICHARDS ET AL. 2006_AJ_131_2766 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the QLF validation using Table 6 also planned? Maybe it'll go in a different PR? Please let me know if I'm missing something!
|
|
||
| observation : string | ||
| string indicating which obsrvational data to use for validating | ||
| """ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would help to add the agn_flux_fraction to the parameter docstring!
| band : string | ||
| photometric band | ||
|
|
||
| rest_frame_band : string |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we add a description for the purpose of this argument, e.g. it's only used to query the K-corrected (z=0) magnitudes for applying the Mag_lim selection?
| @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ | |||
| # RICHARDS ET AL. 2006_AJ_131_2766 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it okay if the extension of this file goes like .original? It does seem like it's not used...
| @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ | |||
| subclass_name: AGN_NumberDensities.AGN_NumberDensity | |||
| band: g | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is the number density agreement for the three SDSS_g* tests so poor? I'm looking at plots like
for the SDSS_g test on the cosmoDC2_v1.1.4_small_combined_agn catalog. I'll try running it for a bigger catalog; maybe the small one is missing the brightest quasars? Also, is there a list of catalogs this test is meant to run for and does DESCQA let you specify it anywhere?
yymao
added
validation: truth
validation: extragalactic
and removed
validation: truth
labels
yymao
changed the title
