Closed andrevitorelli closed 2 years ago
In addition to the comment I let on the code, here are some comments on the notebooks:
galaxy.py
?Real Images - I
I feel like some galaxies looks "weird", maybe it is juste me.. The noise looks strange as well.Real Images II
I feel like there is some patterns in the noise?Test GalFlow Deconv/Reconv
are the residual actually small? what is the maximum pixel value in your original image? Because if the flux is 1, like it is in your default, this is actually not that "small" a few percent. But maybe it is expected?GalFlow vs GalSim
same comment ^^^^^reconv w/ same psf noshear
Simple Ellipticity Measurements
I don't like what I see here. The value you measure are "far" from the expected one. Maybe this is because of the step size, could you re-try with step=0.01?Averaging the response comparison over many galaxies
you should fix the plot, we cannot see what is going on. Also, I am very surprise by the value you have (-350), this should not happen given your dataset. Some general comments:
I've updated this branch to main.
This PR should be dropped as #40 covers it.
I am trying to generate a more realistic set of galaxy stamps to test autometacal. These methods will be available inside the datasets subpackage and eventually integrated into tensorflow-datasets api within autometacal.
I have created a notebook at notebooks/Datasets.ipynb to explore different ways to do so.
Currently, I have implementations of:
Both 2. and 3. have problems for sure, which is why I'm seeking some guidance from @aguinot also. I'm trying to improve 2. getting code from galaxy2galaxy now.
PS: I have also tried to do bulge+disk models (with some reasonable assumptions) by modifying 1., and tested them as I was doing before - the results were comparable to 1.