Bug in magnification bias #963
Conversation
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 2776415913
💛 - Coveralls |
| # Small bias so the magnification contribution | ||
| # is significant (if there at all) | ||
| b = np.ones_like(z)*0.1 | ||
| s_no = np.ones_like(z)*0.4 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought no magnification was s=0. Am I missing something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no magnification is s=2/5, I'm afraid :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, right. Might want to update the docstring here then: https://github.com/LSSTDESC/CCL/blob/master/pyccl/tracers.py#L94
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, but this is correct, right? If s is None, then it assumes s=0 (i.e. q=1) and returns the usual weak lensing kernel.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're right. I was confused by the mag_bias argument in NumberCountsTracer, where mag_bias=None effectively gives q=0, and mag_bias in get_lensing_kernel, where mag_bias=None gives q=1.
|
That's good to know. If you have an independent benchmark for magnification, we've been looking for one for a while! |
Closes #962