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

Discrepancy between d12 and color corrected HFI353 #128

Closed
erussier opened this issue Oct 26, 2022 · 15 comments
Closed

Discrepancy between d12 and color corrected HFI353 #128

erussier opened this issue Oct 26, 2022 · 15 comments

Comments

@erussier
Copy link

Hello, I plotted the PySM d12 dust power spectra and compared to the HFI353GHz. There seems to be an offset at large scales that we do not find when comparing the MKD map (without color correction) from here (https://apc.u-paris.fr/Downloads/Planck/PSM-Data/MKD-MODEL-PySM-2048/skyinbands/HFI/detector_F353/) and the HFI353GHz without color correction.
This is what I get for Emodes and Bmodes.
download
download
In principle, the PSM MKD and HFI353 without color correction should be compatible and d12 and color corrected HFI353 should also be compatible at least on the largest scales.
Here is the jupyter notebook where I did this comparison: comp_dust_PS_d12_MKD_map.ipynb

@zonca
Copy link
Member

zonca commented Oct 26, 2022

thanks @erussier, can you please repeat the test at Nside 2048 and update the notebook?

@zonca
Copy link
Member

zonca commented Oct 26, 2022

also to test the implementation I am comparing with this reference notebook with a simple analysis ran at Nside 8:
https://gist.github.com/brandonshensley/1dda561b245cda6497eb1b5ce2b7c267

can you check there if you find any errors?

@zonca
Copy link
Member

zonca commented Oct 31, 2022

@erussier can you please adapt the notebook to run at NSIDE 2048 instead of 512?
In the notebook, when you write outputs, can you write to a local folder (`"./output") so the notebook can be executed by other people more easily?
Don't worry about the other thing I suggested.

@erussier
Copy link
Author

Hi @zonca, I ran the notebook at NSIDE 2048 except for the MKD map since the native NSIDE of the MKD map I have is 512. So if you want to run this notebook at NSIDE 2048, please change the NSIDE in the section "Plot map of Planck MKD model" and the path to the MKD map. Here it is: https://gist.github.com/erussier/89b656bba5c65331b5764d39754b7d38

@zonca
Copy link
Member

zonca commented Oct 31, 2022

the MKD is the most important map to have at 2048, @delabrou ran the MKD model at Nside 2048, those are the maps that I am using as inputs to PySM.
I think the easiest for comparison would be to have MKD at Nside 2048 at 353GHz include all layers computed using those Nside 2048 templates and compare it directly to the output of PySM 3, the maps should be identical.

@erussier
Copy link
Author

erussier commented Nov 7, 2022

Hi @zonca, I found the MKD map at NSIDE = 2048 and indeed we get the same results between the MKD model at 353 GHz and d12. I guess we can close this issue.
image

image

@zonca
Copy link
Member

zonca commented Nov 7, 2022

Good news! Thanks

@zonca zonca closed this as completed Nov 7, 2022
@erussier
Copy link
Author

In fact, the mkd map I was using at NSIDE 2048 and used in the PySM pipeline, was generated without the color correction implemented. We need to multiply the mkd map by 0.92 to take into account the color correction. Probably the best thing to do is to change the input maps. @delabrou will generate new maps to use as inputs for PySM.

@zonca
Copy link
Member

zonca commented Nov 10, 2022

Sure, I can then replace the inputs

@zonca
Copy link
Member

zonca commented Nov 28, 2022

@erussier any news on the new maps?

@zonca zonca reopened this Nov 28, 2022
@zonca
Copy link
Member

zonca commented Nov 30, 2022

@erussier @delabru what if I just apply the 0.911 factor (see #99 (comment)) inside PySM?

@erussier
Copy link
Author

Sorry for the late reply, we think that is okay to apply the 0.911 factor inside PySM, thank you.

zonca added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2022
zonca added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2022
@zonca
Copy link
Member

zonca commented Dec 1, 2022

@erussier @delabru ok, I implemented it in:

#141

can you please confirm that I just multiply the IQU template, I don't change anything in the spectral index map and the black body temperature?

@delabrou
Copy link

delabrou commented Dec 1, 2022

Yes, I confirm. You multiply all IQU templates by the colour correction factor (in the PSM I use 0.92).

@delabrou
Copy link

delabrou commented Dec 1, 2022

Do not do anything to the temperature and spectral index maps.

@zonca zonca closed this as completed in d6139ed Dec 1, 2022
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants