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

: Setup automated tool to evaluate shear bias and compare against metacal equivalent #3

Open
Tracked by #2
b-remy opened this issue Nov 16, 2021 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #4
Open
Tracked by #2

: Setup automated tool to evaluate shear bias and compare against metacal equivalent #3

b-remy opened this issue Nov 16, 2021 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #4

Comments

@b-remy
Copy link
Owner

b-remy commented Nov 16, 2021

No description provided.

@b-remy b-remy linked a pull request Nov 16, 2021 that will close this issue
@b-remy
Copy link
Owner Author

b-remy commented Nov 16, 2021

This issue aims to track the development of the Metacalibration baseline script.

So far we only input the the postage stamp, the PSF and the noise level to perform metacal.

In order to work on simulations from #1 , the simulations are saved in fits files so that it also keeps track of the noise level and the true shear in the data. I'm not aware of the good practices to create fits file so, I'm open to advices :-) The idea is that both our probabilistic inference code and metacal load the same file containing all the information needed.

@b-remy
Copy link
Owner Author

b-remy commented Jan 26, 2023

Pointer that I am starting to work on this issue.

@b-remy
Copy link
Owner Author

b-remy commented Feb 20, 2023

In order to have an order of magnitude, we don't necessarily need to run metacal on our galaxies. Exponential galaxies will work as long as we respect the condition of S/N < 10, which should be the cut for LSST for instance. So I will just run the metacal.py with this condition.

python metacal.py --noise=.8e-2 --ntrial=10000 
10000/10000 100%

S/N: 10.0131
R11: 0.358962
m: -0.646497 +/- 0.978565 (99.7% conf)
c: -0.00133305 +/- 0.00973926 (99.7% conf)

Results involving more galaxies will follow

@b-remy b-remy mentioned this issue Feb 20, 2023
@b-remy
Copy link
Owner Author

b-remy commented Feb 20, 2023

With 10^5 galaxies

python metacal.py --noise=.8e-2 --ntrial=100000

S/N: 10.0157
R11: 0.358477
m: -0.00334721 +/- 0.309179 (99.7% conf)
c: 3.61223e-05 +/- 0.00308977 (99.7% conf)

So we are not there yet. Might need 10^7, 10^8 according to Sheldon and Huff, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant