CosmoCoffee Forum Index CosmoCoffee

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistSmartFeed   MemberlistMemberlist    RegisterRegister 
   ProfileProfile   Log inLog in 
Arxiv New Filter | Bookmarks & clubs | Arxiv ref/author:

Outdated Lenspix on cosmologist.info
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CosmoCoffee Forum Index -> Computers and software
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pavel Motloch



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 6
Affiliation: U Chicago

PostPosted: February 24 2017  Reply with quote

Lenspix obtained from http://cosmologist.info/lenspix/submit.html is fairly outdated (missing at least the toms760.f90 update from June 2014). Is there any other significant difference between the current (git) version and what is on the cosmologist.info website?

I have a slight bias (relative difference 1e-4 in TT, EE around ell = 3000 for nside 4096, lmax 8000, interp_fac = 2) in my lensed power spectra when compared with CAMB and am trying to figure out whether that is just interpolation error or some systematic issue.

Thanks,

PM
Back to top
View user's profile  
Pavel Motloch



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 6
Affiliation: U Chicago

PostPosted: February 24 2017  Reply with quote

[Based on one quick example it looks like except toms760.f90 there are no other changes affecting SimLens.f90 and related routines]
Back to top
View user's profile  
Antony Lewis



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 1291
Affiliation: University of Sussex

PostPosted: February 24 2017  Reply with quote

10−4 sounds quite good...

You can see the commit history at
https://github.com/cmbant/lenspix/commits/EBsep

but I don't remember fixing anything recently. (should update the download link to point to github)
Back to top
View user's profile [ Hidden ] Visit poster's website
Pavel Motloch



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 6
Affiliation: U Chicago

PostPosted: February 25 2017  Reply with quote

Thanks.

Yeah, it is really good. But it is a systematic bias, so it shifts your best likelihood point for CMB S4-like specs in a manner which we are not entirely happy about. Increasing interp_fac would resolve this, but then the memory demands increase. Presumably larger nside would also help, but that is getting slow.
Back to top
View user's profile  
Antony Lewis



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 1291
Affiliation: University of Sussex

PostPosted: February 25 2017  Reply with quote

CAMB is of course only designed to be designed to be accurate at the 1e−3 level with default setting. You could also try use the lensing functions in pycamb's correlations module to do a more accurate lensing calculation from the input power spectra (though the analytic result is still truncated at O(2) in Cgl,2, though I think that's OK to about 1e−4).
Back to top
View user's profile [ Hidden ] Visit poster's website
Pavel Motloch



Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 6
Affiliation: U Chicago

PostPosted: February 25 2017  Reply with quote

Thanks, those are good suggestions. Previously I did not mention that when you run Lenspix without any lensing potential, you get roughly the same bias between the sims and input unlensed Cls in Lenspix alone as you get between CAMB and Lenspix. So we believe it is related to the interpolation in Lenspix.

Will take a look at pycamb lensing, did not know it is different than what CAMB is doing.
Back to top
View user's profile  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CosmoCoffee Forum Index -> Computers and software All times are GMT + 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group. Sponsored by WordWeb online dictionary and dictionary software.