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

Constraining parameter gradients for the test set #13

Open
mcyc opened this issue Mar 12, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

Constraining parameter gradients for the test set #13

mcyc opened this issue Mar 12, 2019 · 3 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@mcyc
Copy link
Collaborator

mcyc commented Mar 12, 2019

Should we narrow the range of gradient values used for our test set? The current 1-sigma range values for temp, sigma, voff, and logN, respectively, are as the following:

scale = np.array([[0.2, 0.1, 0.5, 0.01]])

My biggest concern right now is the voff range. Without some sort of beam smoothing between the pixels, individual spectra in the cube can be 'velocity-incoherent' from one another if the voff gradient is larger enough. An instance of this issue can be seen in the example NH3 (1,1) line below, where the mean spectrum of the cube is shown in grey and the central spectrum is shown in red:

Test_NH3_11_example

@mcyc mcyc added the question Further information is requested label Mar 12, 2019
@jakeown
Copy link

jakeown commented Mar 12, 2019

Well that is bad! I think we should change the line you highlighted to:
scale = np.array([[0.2, 0.1, 0.1, 0.01]])
I ran some tests with this set to 0.1 km/s and I'm not seeing these multi-peaks like we do when its at 0.2 or higher.

@mcyc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mcyc commented Mar 13, 2019

Okay, I've implemented your suggestion in the mcyc-pgradients branch. We can merger the branch later when we have a consensus on what these values should be for our test.

@mcyc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mcyc commented Mar 20, 2019

I've just submitted a pull request for this (see #15). @low-sky, @jpinedaf, @jakeown, and @rfriesen, feel free to make any further suggestions before the merge.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants