-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
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
Quickcat update #518
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Quickcat update #518
Conversation
Thanks @rstaten . Please check and fix the failing unit tests:
It is ok to not be backwards compatible with old fiberassign files, but at least tests should pass. Could you also provide plots comparing the new efficiencies with the old ones? i.e. are these big changes or small? |
Hi both, If nothing else, the quickcat output should be one HDU trying to mimic the LSS catalogue, with a separate HDU for the truth information.
|
I fixed the unit tests. Ryan, the fits for redshift efficiency look off. E.g. the Gaussian STD is negative for LRG: I resorted to the old yaml file. Presumably, because it's fitting to ~1.00. I also added MWS to the z perturbation dict., in lieu of calling STAR and WD independently in the tests. Also, removed DECAM_FLUXS given incompatibility with actual targeting files, and added fluxes I'll look to merge with #501 and the new LSS catalog (desihub/LSS#4 (comment)). |
… fits given off numbers.
…ây given off numbers (*.py)
…given quicksurvey_example #20 changes.
Hi Michael, Thanks for the information and fixing the unit tests/other updates. I agree that the LRG parameters seem off, but as you mentioned this is because it is fitting to 1.00. Below are some plots comparing the old vs. new fits. I didn't include QSO comparisons because I changed the cutoff for low vs. high redshift from z=2.0 to z=2.1, but I can make some plots that compare apples to apples if needed. Let me know if you'd like me to provide any other updates for this branch. If it's better to go ahead and merge this and discuss other changes for future branches that's no problem. |
This PR:
Notes:
@sbailey, @julienguy, Do you have any comments on this, in particular with the backwards compatibility for fiber assignment and updated models?
Here are some example plots showing the updated fits: