rotation reconstruction convention corrections#9
Open
catketchup wants to merge 5 commits intomasterfrom
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Hi Mat, this is Hongbo. I am using the rotation reconstruction estimators of symlens. It is a very poweful tool.
I checked the implementation of the rotation estimators and found several convention inconsistencies. I notice https://github.com/simonsobs/symlens/blob/master/symlens/qe.py#L1315 which uses the Yadav et. al. 2009 convention. However, I found the norm in https://github.com/simonsobs/symlens/blob/master/symlens/qe.py#L688, the unnormalized estimator in https://github.com/simonsobs/symlens/blob/master/symlens/qe.py#L909 and the N0 in https://github.com/simonsobs/symlens/blob/master/symlens/qe.py#L746 are inconsistent for rotation field reconstruction and don't give the right result. After I corrected the points above in my branch, I compared the in_alpha x rec_alpha with in_alpha x in_alpha, which match well. I also checked the output N0, which matches well with that used in the SO.
Thank you!