Difference between revisions of "October 1st, 2018"

From LSS Mocks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
()
()
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 38: Line 38:
 
QU orientation, peak finding on 10’, map presmoothed to 10’:
 
QU orientation, peak finding on 10’, map presmoothed to 10’:
  
[[File:planck_tt_max_QU_stack.jpg|frameless]]
+
[[File:planck_tt_max_QU_stack.jpg]]
  
  
These two runs each found ~17,000 peaks, whereas Connor's final SURP presentation slides show that his runs with the same data and smoothing found about 40,000 peaks. I am unsure whether he perhaps used an older or otherwise different Planck y-map, or if something in my run is actually causing it to find fewer peaks.
+
These two runs each found ~17,000 peaks, whereas Connor's final SURP presentation slides show that his runs with the same data and smoothing found about 40,000 peaks. I am unsure whether he perhaps used an older or otherwise different Planck y-map, or if something in my run is actually causing it to find fewer peaks. The granularity also looks different than in Connor's plots, but this may be due to a different colorbar scale, so I will try adjusting that next.

Latest revision as of 18:20, 2 October 2018

Code Details and Software Installation

Connor Bevington's GitHub repository is here: [1] This repository contains .ini files for input to the Cosmology Object Oriented Package (COOP): [2] I have installed COOP in my CITA computing account. COOP requires several other packages to run; many of the most recent versions of these packages were incompatible with COOP. The versions that have worked for me are:

  • Healpix V3.31
  • gcc/5.4.0
  • openmpi/2.0.0-gcc-5.4.0
  • gsl/2.2.1-gcc-5.4.0
  • cfitsio/3.390

All of the above can be loaded as modules on the CITA system except for Healpix, which can be downloaded from here: [3].

The basic structure to run the stacking codes is to first run a program to find peaks, and then run a second program to stack on those peaks. These programs are run in COOP/mapio. For example, this might look like:

./GetPeaks planck_tt_max_random.ini

./Stack planck_tt_max_random_stack.ini

Naming conventions for the files are found on Connor's GitHub READMEs. "GetPeaks" produces a list of points to stack on, depending what the .ini file defines as a peak. "Stack" does the actual stacking and produces a .txt file that can be converted to a .pdf image by the following (ran in COOP/mapio):

python ../utils/pypl.py myfigure.txt myfigure.pdf

This did not work with me when the COOP required modules were loaded, but I had success after unloading the current gcc and Python and instead loading:

  • gcc/7.3.0
  • Python 2.7.3

The images displayed below are from this pre-made COOP plotting function. "Stack" also produces a FITS file that can be manually plotted or loaded in saods9, instead of using the previous command.

Maps

<tSZ | tSZ>

Peaks in Planck tSZ map stacked onto each other

Random orientation, peak finding on 10’, map presmoothed to 10’:

Planck tt max random stack-page-001.jpg

QU orientation, peak finding on 10’, map presmoothed to 10’:

Planck tt max QU stack.jpg


These two runs each found ~17,000 peaks, whereas Connor's final SURP presentation slides show that his runs with the same data and smoothing found about 40,000 peaks. I am unsure whether he perhaps used an older or otherwise different Planck y-map, or if something in my run is actually causing it to find fewer peaks. The granularity also looks different than in Connor's plots, but this may be due to a different colorbar scale, so I will try adjusting that next.