Closed acliu closed 3 years ago
Merging #342 (d09af02) into master (1b11373) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
n/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #342 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.93% 95.93%
=======================================
Files 16 16
Lines 5412 5412
=======================================
Hits 5192 5192
Misses 220 220
Flag | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
unittests | 95.93% <ø> (ø) |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
hera_pspec/pspecdata.py | 97.08% <ø> (ø) |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1b11373...d09af02. Read the comment docs.
…ow we actually account for tapering in our code
This PR is in response to a scary moment where we thought that there was a bug in the pspec normalization. The code actually is correct, but some docstrings were misleading. I've updated the docstrings to (accurately) state that:
R1
andR2
, theget_H
function does not make any extra adjustments in normalization to account for the taper.scalar_delay_adjustment
. This is needed for a correct power spectrum normalization, and we had implemented that in the function. However, we neglected to say that this was being done in the docstring.@r-pascua reran the HERA validation test 0.1.0 with v0.3.0 with
hera_pspec
to show that the power spectrum is correctly normalized whether we use a taper or not. The result is good to the percent level vs Adam Lanman's analytic prediction for his simulated data. See attached file.new_hera_pspec_validation_test_result (1).pdf