Hotfix and cosmic ray energy reconstruction parameterization for summit #682
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds the parameterization for Summit station for the cosmic ray energy to the cosmicRayEnergyReconstructor module. This parameterization was determined in a similar way as described in the original paper by @christophwelling; I used the cosmic ray simulations by @cg-laser (see MSc thesis by @lpyras for more details) and fit the parameterization to noiseless cosmic ray signals using a 4-LPDA layout. The fit was performed directly over all zeniths and energies, weighted by the simulation weights and using an$E^-2$ flux, and minimizing $\Delta \log E$ .
In addition, I noticed a bug in the code - the third parameter of the
scale_parameterizationwas never used, instead the first parameter was used twice. I fixed this, but I am actually not sure if the parameterizations are otherwise correct; also in the original paper, I'm worried the order of the parameters might occasionally be swapped, because e.g. numpy uses the conventionp[0] + p[1] x + p[2] x**2 + ...(i.e. constant term first) rather than putting the highest-order term first. It would maybe be good if @christophwelling could double check this : )