-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
fix oscillation probability and add histograms for particle origin #40
Changes from 4 commits
badde13
75f3b2f
7e407fc
e28b192
7b28aa0
74a6e66
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ | |
bhl.config.set_cparm('RAD_NUM_TYPES', 4) | ||
bhl.config.set_cparm('NEUTRINO_OSCILLATIONS', True) | ||
bhl.config.set_cparm('FORCE_EQUIPARTITION', False) | ||
bhl.config.set_cparm("RZ_HISTOGRAMS", True) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Just to confirm again, these RZ histograms will help to plot the R and Z origin locations of the photons in the bin under investigation, correct? so that we can track where the neutrinos in the bin came from and establish the effect of opacities/emissivities? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. yep exactly. |
||
|
||
### RUNTIME PARAMETERS ### | ||
|
||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you explain a bit on why you did ebar=total/stddev to compare it to gtemp? I am confused a bit on the dimensions of these quantities.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In line 206,can you explain why you need the G!=0 condition if you are already checking for A!=0 and B!=0? G is dependent on the local angle (not talking about the global position angle) while A and B are not dependent on the local angle.. oh is it for ensuring not-oscillating where stddev was triggered as the comment seems to suggest?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks like you are not using the in_deep variable anywhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, I think this is a bug. ebar is relative error. But g_temp is absolute size. So g_temp should be compared to stddev, not ebar.
Yes exactly. I set g = 0 when g < stddev, so it's used as a trigger.
Good catch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Yurlungur , okay makes sense about the G != 0 and removal of the unused variable. Regarding the g_temp vs stddev vs ebar: Yes, indeed your fix was what I had in mind while commenting. I can't find any other obvious errors so will approve this. But to double check, g_temp you calculate by taking the distribution function f, and using the formula of the paper.. and stddev is calculated using quantities like w, N, which are whole numbers, where N is calculated by counting the number of superphotons in a given location and local angle bin.. so I would just make sure that those two quantities (gtemp and stddev) are reflecting the same things (which I think it is now)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Correct.