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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Lineshape issues at low pressure with DIT min-RMS #421

Closed
2 tasks
erwanp opened this issue Mar 5, 2022 · 5 comments 路 Fixed by #422
Closed
2 tasks

Lineshape issues at low pressure with DIT min-RMS #421

erwanp opened this issue Mar 5, 2022 · 5 comments 路 Fixed by #422
Labels
bug Something isn't working good first issue Good for newcomers physics involves the physics
Milestone

Comments

@erwanp
Copy link
Member

erwanp commented Mar 5, 2022

馃悰 Describe the bug

For very narrow broadening (typically mbar), the lineshape obtained with min-RMS weights of the DIT algorithm ( #116 ) give wrong lineshape.

This happens both with FFT and Analytical Voigt.

馃枼 Steps To Reproduce

for broadening_method in ["fft", "voigt"]:
    
    for optimization in ["simple", None, "min-RMS"]:
        
        if broadening_method == "fft" and optimization is None:
            continue # not Implemented
        
        import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
        from radis import calc_spectrum
        s = calc_spectrum(4355, 4365,         # cm-1
                          molecule='CO',
                          pressure=1e-3,   # bar
                          Tgas=1000,           # K
                          databank='hitran',  # or use 'hitemp',
                          optimization=optimization,
                          wstep='auto',
                          verbose=False,
                          broadening_method=broadening_method,
                          name="DIT: {0}, Lineshape : {1}".format(str(optimization), broadening_method)
                          )
        s.plot('xsection')
        plt.title(s.name)
        plt.yscale("log")

Analytical Voigt :

image

FFT :

image

馃挕 Possible solutions

Fix coefficients @dcmvdbekerom ?

in the meantime :

  • Switching default weights to "simple"
  • add a warning if pressure/wstep too small ?
@erwanp erwanp added bug Something isn't working physics involves the physics labels Mar 5, 2022
@erwanp erwanp added this to the 0.12.1 milestone Mar 5, 2022
@erwanp erwanp mentioned this issue Mar 5, 2022
8 tasks
@anandxkumar anandxkumar added the good first issue Good for newcomers label Mar 5, 2022
@anandxkumar
Copy link
Collaborator

The temporary fix can be a good first issue for newcomers!

@dcmvdbekerom
Copy link
Member

dcmvdbekerom commented Mar 5, 2022

This also happened in #186 (comment)

Even after all corrections, the optimized weights do this at too narrow widths.

My preference would be to make the simple weights default, they are more reliable if a little less accurate, but you can compensate by increasing width grid resolution

@erwanp
Copy link
Member Author

erwanp commented Mar 6, 2022

@anandxkumar already done in #422 :)

@ishumi007
Copy link

Hi @erwanp, is this issue still open if yes then I'd like to contribute and can you please tell me how can I do so I mean I know basic python but I am ready to learn anything that will be required here. Thank you

@anandxkumar
Copy link
Collaborator

Hello @ishumi007, thanks for showing interest in the issue. Erwan actually created a Pull request regarding the same, so I would suggest you look into other issues and let us know if you need any help regarding it :)

erwanp added a commit to erwanp/radis that referenced this issue Mar 20, 2022
@erwanp erwanp mentioned this issue Apr 13, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working good first issue Good for newcomers physics involves the physics
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants