Issue/60/simplest error model

[jbkalmbach]

Here to follow along development of simple error model during DESC Hack Week.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-5.9%) to 25.238% when pulling f45146d8f8d91e2886cc3e39195ca4256b556fd9 on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-5.9%) to 25.238% when pulling 149dda1b28a0582c6aa28c7fe06d39f8ee463daf on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-5.9%) to 25.238% when pulling e16a50ee4df4d6c25a86f4de18c308e5746b6251 on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.

[jbkalmbach]

@drphilmarshall @rbiswas4 What do you think about merging this so that we have all the updates we added during hack week in the master branch and continuing on with new pull requests from here?

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-5.9%) to 25.238% when pulling ede81d5db0dfbfa1db164ef1447fe1e89f165800 on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.

[drphilmarshall]

Good idea. I'll take a look.

[jbkalmbach]

All those sound good. I'll make the changes.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-6.2%) to 24.844% when pulling 323a048e60db8aae26075ef7ea02623c8614de33 on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-6.3%) to 24.742% when pulling 5a590f69f1f01425944f3d4c6cabfe952ad40e7d on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-6.3%) to 24.742% when pulling 5a590f69f1f01425944f3d4c6cabfe952ad40e7d on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-6.3%) to 24.742% when pulling 97f1311eeb393436b5331fd6737832d7cdc8b962 on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-6.5%) to 24.588% when pulling ce6baafdf31f4141e92c96e0503eb52245fb987a on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-6.5%) to 24.588% when pulling ce6baafdf31f4141e92c96e0503eb52245fb987a on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.

[jbkalmbach]

@rbiswas4 These are ready for a look. Thanks.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-7.06%) to 24.033% when pulling 9221ddea5401f89eb37227b2017254f0c0fc125e on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.

[jbkalmbach]

@drphilmarshall @rbiswas4

Ok. I think I've addressed most of the requests from the last update. The only thing is that instead of splitting up the error model notebook as you proposed Rahul, I explicitly mention in the README that the depth_curve notebook is a good intro to the Monitor and that the simple_error_model is a sample of the analysis we are doing with it. If I really missed anything else though let me know. Thanks.

[rbiswas4]

The only thing is that instead of splitting up the error model notebook as you proposed Rahul, I explicitly mention in the README that the depth_curve notebook is a good intro to the Monitor and that the simple_error_model is a sample of the analysis we are doing with it.

Sounds good enough! Let us go forward.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-7.08%) to 24.012% when pulling 520cdebf83fbe32877a3c61a66273fb862a8c6b6 on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.

[drphilmarshall]

Looks good, Bryce :-) However, I wrote previously:

Last thing: you talk about comparisons between DM and OpSim values - but I guess its really PhoSim+DM and OpSim that are being compared. Can you add some discussion of this point please? We don't want the reader going away thinking that there are errors in the DM measurements when there may not be... What do you think?

I still think it's best to address this, even in one sentence, in the error model example notebook - and it certainly should be in the DESC Note on the Twinkles 1 error model. I think we want a caveat like the following in the conclusions:

"There are two possible sources of discrepancy, either 1) the PhoSim realization of the OpSim observation, or 2) the DM processing of the PhoSim realization. If we simply want to predict DM measurements given OpSim inputs, the error model shown here (and its descendants) will enable that. However, when looking to develop an accurate inference scheme for real data, we will need to isolate step 2) by comparing with PhoSim 'inputs'. This kind of investigation will also be enabled by the Monitor functionality demonstrated here."

What do you think?

[jbkalmbach]

Ah, ok. I will add that in. I was interpreting your original comment as more just making sure to clearly label what the results coming out of the database were. I understand now what you meant and will add that paragraph into the conclusions. I also think that definitely helps explain where we are currently at with the error model as shown in the notebook. Thanks.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-7.08%) to 24.012% when pulling 3f46d0092db1b6b48186b5faf0839912ee84220e on issue/60/simplest_error_model into 97f3ab297cbe1494160eb87a53f394b56e1f4a16 on master.