-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Random DLA along the line-of-sight #35
Comments
@jfarr03 or @fjaviersanchez, could you produce the random catalog of DLA for |
@fjaviersanchez I think you've done this previously but I'm happy to take it on in future - did you just use generate_rnd.py in the past? And with what settings? |
I used a revamped version specific for DLAs. I am sending it to you on slack but feel free to add it to the repo (I would say under the desi directory). I also generated the random catalog here: I didn't include any ID but the ra and dec should be from a given line of sight with a DLA. |
@fjaviersanchez and @jfarr03, thanks for the randoms. The issue is that we really need the equivalent of |
That shouldn't be too difficult - I'll get on it now! |
Are you sure you know how to generate DLA randoms? I thought this was non-trivial. |
Is it not possible to just pick random points on each skewer according to a certain number density n(z)? |
Looking at the generate_rnd_dla.py code I'm not sure that's what is being done actually: it seems to read the actual DLA redshifts and then add noise to them, to ensure that the n(z) is the same as the actual DLAs. Is it not more straightforward and more reliable to just use the n(z) from pyigm? |
Excellent news! I'm generating a new set of randoms now, using the same method as the old ones but including MOCKID, Z_QSO_RSD and Z_QSO_NO_RSD. The current file is still in the same location but renamed with suffix "_noMOCKID". |
@jfarr03, Thanks. Could you create the file directly in running the following code:
I get the error:
|
Fixed with the latest DLA_random_catalog. Thanks @jfarr03 and @fjaviersanchez . |
@fjaviersanchez, I write it there so we don't forget. When we have the time, we could work on improving the random DLA, spatially along the line-of-sight.
I think the proper way would be to:
for each of these set multiple random DLAs, as you do for mocked data DLA.
The consequence is that we will have multiple random DLAs for each random line of sight.
This is the current DLA auto-correlation. We can see that there is spurious correlation along the line-of-sight.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: