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

Likelihoods organization for different TT, TE, EE, TTTEEE modes #3

Closed
xgarrido opened this issue Nov 11, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

Likelihoods organization for different TT, TE, EE, TTTEEE modes #3

xgarrido opened this issue Nov 11, 2019 · 5 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@xgarrido
Copy link
Collaborator

So far the MFLike likelihood has been tested only for TTTEEE mode and the associated MFLike.yaml file is filled for this mode (all the nuisance parameters are set for instance).

We can imagine to organize likelihoods for TT, TE, EE and TTTEEE in the same way as for Planck 2018 (https://github.com/CobayaSampler/cobaya/tree/master/cobaya/likelihoods/planck_2018_highl_plik) where each likelihoods just inherits from a base class that actually do the job. The current MFLike likelihood can play the same role but then we need to create independant likelihoods that inherits from it and we also need to define several yaml files with corresponding nuisance parameters (as well as corresponding proposal). Any thoughts ?

@mabitbol
Copy link
Contributor

mabitbol commented Nov 11, 2019 via email

@cmbant
Copy link
Collaborator

cmbant commented Nov 11, 2019

At the moment Cobaya needs at least a new class for each likelihood, you can't reference .yaml files directly (but you can now define all the classes in one module rather than making lots of separate .py files). You can of course also override the relevant setting when you run as long as the number of nuisance parameters is the same. (Could also think about some automated way of generating a trivial wrapper class whenever a yaml is referenced directly with no matching class provided.)

Btw, if you inherit from _InstallableLikelihood or one of the descendants, and define the download location, it should support automatic data file installation via the standard Cobaya mechanism (though I haven't actually tested it with external likelihoods).

@xgarrido xgarrido added the question Further information is requested label Dec 22, 2019
@cmbant
Copy link
Collaborator

cmbant commented Aug 2, 2024

Did anyone try this? Would be good to know if any changes are needed to underlying Cobaya structures (e.g. not clear how to dynamically vary the nuisance parameters because on requirements). What is ACT doing?

@cmbant
Copy link
Collaborator

cmbant commented Aug 14, 2024

My attempt #89

@cmbant
Copy link
Collaborator

cmbant commented Sep 4, 2024

I guess can be closed after #90

@cmbant cmbant closed this as completed Sep 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants