-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
DM-48279: APDB simulation #263
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Few general comments, and I did not read the whole thing.
" detected per square degree. For this simulation, these will" | ||
" always be detected, and detected in the same location." | ||
"The default is chosen such that:" | ||
" Density x Rubin Fov (9.6) x # of visits per night (~600) ~ 10M", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think LDM-141 specifies average of 1000 visits per night?
default=4, | ||
doc="Average ratio of false detections to real sources." | ||
"These will be detected in random locations.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LDM-141 expects false positives to be 50% of real alerts, if the actual number is 400%, do we need to update LDM-141?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good question, since we are nowhere close to 2:1 real to bogus sources currently. This ratio is over a year old, though, and has not been re-evaluated from ComCam data.
default=10, | ||
doc="Area (in degrees) of the simulated survey", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, with the area so small the distribution across spatial partitions will be very uneven, that will likely cause uneven load across Cassandra cluster.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this was just for testing. The actual value will be 18000.
difference and direct images at DiaObject locations. | ||
""" | ||
# Restrict forced source measurement to objects with sufficient history to be reliable. | ||
objectTable = diaObjects.query(f'nDiaSources >= {self.config.historyThreshold}') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, this depends on nDiaSources
being correct and that depends on having DiaSource history.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this is the one place I currently use the diaSource history. I will attempt to re-write it without needing that history, so that I can skip reading diaSources.
7b236ab
to
9ab4ece
Compare
Before many diaObjects were being missed, now they are all correctly loaded
Do not write preloaded diaObjects that were not associated with new diaSources
9ab4ece
to
998e6fb
Compare
8b1e8fc
to
e98d0ee
Compare
d49e000
to
3ffec1a
Compare
No description provided.