-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Test grid points for evaluating IRF interpolation #49
Comments
Are new pointings nodes really necessary? |
Yes, it will help us to perform the tests to check the efficiency of the interpolation with finer grid widths to check the dependence of grid width to interpolations (especially quantile interpolation for the pdf based IRFs) and therefore to either justify the current grid widths or propose finer ones. |
the proposal of those extra test pointings looks good to me. |
Having dedicated test targets would be quite helpful. To add to the discussion, maybe we'd also want to have a high-zen target for some extensive tests. Additionally, since extrapolation will be needed, an extrapolation target might be desirable (maybe at the vertex of the crab path?). |
I suppose you will want to produce the IRFs at these nodes and compare the calculated IRFs with the interpolated ones, right? |
I think you can also test the extrapolation with those nodes - just use input nodes that cause the new node to be slightly outside the interpolation triangle (seems easy looking at the plot of Abelardo) |
This was more or less my line of thought - now that we used the original grid for IRFs we have better feeling if the original statistics are fine, or if they should be increased/reduced. |
I did not mention it explicitly, but these two nodes will also allow us to use them for the "LST1 performance project", without interpolation, to reduce the systematics from the "IRF vs. data pointing mismatches". |
I think extrapolation can be well tested with those two points, and compared with interpolation as well as with "true" IRF. |
@Voutsi, can these two nodes be placed in the queue of productions? |
Hello, please find the simtel files at: /home/georgios.voutsinas/ws/AllSky/TestDataset/sim_telarray/node_theta_23.630_az_259.265_/output_v1.4 /home/georgios.voutsinas/ws/AllSky/TestDataset/sim_telarray/node_theta_23.630_az_100.758_/output_v1.4 |
Awesome, thanks @Voutsi! |
Hi @jsitarek , the production of the 4 additional nodes at 37 & 47 Zd angle has finished, you can still find them at the same old place |
Thanks a lot @Voutsi ! I started processing the files |
In order to test the IRF interpolation algorithms, we need some additional pointings which we can use as "targets" for the interpolation of the standard test MC grid. By comparing the interpolated IRFs, and those computed directly with these additional test pointings, we can assess the precision of the interpolation.
I suggest the two orange points below (red is the Crab path):
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a4701/a47010d39dc58aa966bc110eda1c84f22ed1f201" alt="image"
They have cos($\theta$ ) = 0.916154 (i.e. $\theta$ = 23.63 deg), equal to the mean of the cos($\theta$ ) of the pointings above and below (which correspond to 10.0 and 32.059 degrees), and sin($\delta$ ) chosen to match the Crab path, i.e. 0.76703 and 0.80839. In one of them the interpolation would nearly be a 1-D interpolation, since it is aligned with two grid points (but that may actually be a good test).
These pointings have the advantage that we can also use them for other tests involving real Crab data.
Of the four actual pointings in (ZD, Az) (two for each sin$\delta$ ) we can choose those which are closer to the Crab path:
As usual, Azimuth is astronomical azimuth, measured from geographic north clockwise (i.e. N-E-S-W).
Please comment if this seems reasonable (particularly @jsitarek @chaimain @RuneDominik @rlopezcoto @Voutsi @vuillaut @SeiyaNozaki @morcuended)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: