You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When using the Gaussian noise model to run LISA inference, a time stamp difference showed in PE results if set ref_frame = SSB (in both injection and inference configs) instead of ref_frame = LISA. It indicates epochs in data and likelihood calculation might be inconsistent for LISA with SSB parameters
Take settings from #4686 but with ref_frame changed only, here's the result:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@WuShichao You are right, it works for rebin model. BBHx will return an Array instead of a FrequencySeries if a frequency sequence is given. Then my suspicion is waveforms in rebin model do not need to keep epochs aligned (Array doesn't have this attribute), but in the Gaussian model they need to. So potential time inconsistency emerges for the Gaussian model.
I don't know if my description is misleading, maybe @spxiwh or @mj-will can help explain the issue.
@WuShichao to add some more context to this. As it stands, BBHx always returns the waveform in the LISA reference frame if sample_points is not specified, see here. This leads to a discrepancy between the waveform and tchere which results in the waveform being shifted by an incorrect amount.
As @HumphreyWang mentioned, this doesn't apply to the relative binning case because it specifies samples_points.
Whilst we're observing this in BBHx this could occur with any waveform where tc is defined in a different frame to that of the waveform returned directly by the generator. It also therefore likely may not be a problem if the LISA response was being computed by PyCBC.
When using the Gaussian noise model to run LISA inference, a time stamp difference showed in PE results if set
ref_frame = SSB
(in both injection and inference configs) instead ofref_frame = LISA
. It indicates epochs in data and likelihood calculation might be inconsistent for LISA with SSB parametersTake settings from #4686 but with
![lisa_smbhb_mass_tc](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/68005354/339177577-8f7a0c40-f0d7-433b-bf97-eaf0a655415e.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.wlK-NZGLcry920IITpCy29ZAkRuQ1KdvTtslSBTReqI)
ref_frame
changed only, here's the result:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: