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

DM-48279: APDB simulation #263

Draft
wants to merge 25 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

DM-48279: APDB simulation #263

wants to merge 25 commits into from

Conversation

isullivan
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@andy-slac andy-slac left a 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",
Copy link
Contributor

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?

Comment on lines 91 to 104
default=4,
doc="Average ratio of false detections to real sources."
"These will be detected in random locations.",
Copy link
Contributor

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?

Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

Comment on lines 72 to 84
default=10,
doc="Area (in degrees) of the simulated survey",
Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

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}')
Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

@isullivan isullivan force-pushed the tickets/DM-48279 branch 2 times, most recently from 7b236ab to 9ab4ece Compare January 14, 2025 01:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants