Closed argiopetech closed 10 years ago
This could also be an issue with the way we're dynamically generating wdGridMass
OK. I should look into this more, but don't know if I'll get a chance for a while. I've got a skype with Roger and Aaron G in 15 minutes and then have to get on to another project.
On 7/23/13 1:38 PM, Elliot Robinson wrote:
This could also be an issue with the way we're dynamically generating wdGridMass https://github.com/argiopetech/base/blob/4912dc7eb870a1da72983336cc488e9db132139b/mpiMcmc/MpiMcmcApplication.cpp#L314
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/argiopetech/base/issues/40#issuecomment-21431876.
Adding a fixed value of 0.125 seems to fix the Renedo models. (edit: It ran for more iterations, but eventually failed)
It seems that
The WDCoolingModels appear to be correct.
Is there any diagnostic that can be run from the output data of the runs with AGBt_zmass += 0.125
that would give us an idea if the proposed clusters are reasonable? That may let us rule out improper age/mass issues.
Okay, I've confirmed that adding a fixed value to the generated AGBt_zmass does not work for extended runs for either WdModel. Both eventually hit a point where the WD mass runs off the lower end of the model.
0.125 is a big delta mass, so something is fishy there. also, whatever adjustments are made in this manner, they won't be constant in mass, but would instead be mass dependent, with smaller mass steps for lower mass (older) sequences.
On 7/23/13 1:52 PM, Elliot Robinson wrote:
Adding a fixed value of 0.125 seems to fix the Renedo models. It seems that
- The generation of the AGB tip mass is correct, and the generated age and mass of the WDs are incorrectly low, or
- The generated age and mass are correct, but the generated AGBt_zmass is improperly low to work with the model set, or
- Both of them are incorrect and they are interacting
The WDCoolingModels appear to be correct.
Is there any diagnostic that can be run from the output data of the runs with |AGBt_zmass += 0.125| that would give us an idea if the proposed clusters are reasonable? That may let us rule out improper age/mass issues.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/argiopetech/base/issues/40#issuecomment-21432906.
Ted von Hippel
Department of Physical Sciences Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 600 S. Clyde Morris Boulevard Daytona Beach, FL 32114-3900 386-226-7751
Probably explains why we're seeing bad behaviour as we proceed through the run. Any ideas where this issue could be originating?
Hmm, looks like this issue isn't an issue. It's a misunderstanding of how we handle binary searches from ~70 commits ago, leading to me completely disallowing extrapolation below the WD masses/ages specified by the model and warning before extrapolating above.
What is the desired behaviour for extrapolation in wdTeffToMassAndRadius
?
Hi Elliot -
if I understand correctly, the question is what should we allow it to do if Teff is too high or too low for the model grid? In both cases, we should let it extrapolate and catch the fact that it is doing so. We can worry later on what we'll do with that information. Probably something we'd want to know if the verbose setting were on.
-Ted
On 7/23/13 4:06 PM, Elliot Robinson wrote:
Hmm, looks like this issue isn't an issue. It's a misunderstanding of how we handle binary searches from ~70 commits ago, leading to me completely disallowing extrapolation below the WD masses/ages specified by the model and warning before extrapolating above.
What is the desired behaviour for extrapolation in |wdTeffToMassAndRadius|?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/argiopetech/base/issues/40#issuecomment-21441954.
Ted von Hippel
Department of Physical Sciences Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 600 S. Clyde Morris Boulevard Daytona Beach, FL 32114-3900 386-226-7751
Assume the Althaus model (lowest mass: 0.45, lowest logAge: ~5.47). If we feed wdTeffToMassAndRadius
a mass of 0.44777 and a wdCoolLogAge of 4.8345, 9.2.1 will extrapolate based on the two lowest ages for the two lowest mass grids, then extrapolate Teff and radius from the two lowest masses and previously extrapolated values. 9.3.0, on the other hand, will refuse to extrapolate to anything younger or less mass-y than the model grid.
I think the 9.2.1 approach is preferable.
The lowest logAge for the cooling models is generally way, way lower than what we care about, so that extrapolation shouldn't be a problem. I'm surprised any WD ends up in that portion of the HR diagram (central to upper left). As for a WD being this low in mass, that too is impressive. I see that those masses are possible for precursor (ZAMS) masses of around 1 Mo, which would mean ages > 10 Gyr.
I can think of three possibilities:
have the code make decent decisions near model boundaries.
of #1 or #3, which is easier?
-Ted
On 7/23/13 4:39 PM, Elliot Robinson wrote:
Assume the Althaus model (lowest mass: 0.45, lowest logAge: ~5.47). If we feed |wdTeffToMassAndRadius| a mass of 0.44777 and a wdCoolLogAge of 4.8345, 9.2.1 will extrapolate based on the two lowest ages for the two lowest mass grids, then extrapolate Teff and radius from the two lowest masses and previously extrapolated values. 9.3.0, on the other hand, will refuse to extrapolate to anything younger or less mass-y than the model grid.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/argiopetech/base/issues/40#issuecomment-21444249.
Ted von Hippel
Department of Physical Sciences Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 600 S. Clyde Morris Boulevard Daytona Beach, FL 32114-3900 386-226-7751
I'd say number 1 at the moment. When I put in the new interp/extrap code (which needs to be an enhancement request if I don't already have it) number 3 will be roughly the same difficulty. At that point, the question becomes whether or not we want to be able to short circuit the execution on unwanted extrapolation, and what impact we want that to have (invalidate the star, invalidate the cluster, etc).
Elliot Robinson Email: elliot.robinson@argiopetech.com Phone: (321) 252-9660
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM, tedvh notifications@github.com wrote:
I think the 9.2.1 approach is preferable.
The lowest logAge for the cooling models is generally way, way lower than what we care about, so that extrapolation shouldn't be a problem. I'm surprised any WD ends up in that portion of the HR diagram (central to upper left). As for a WD being this low in mass, that too is impressive. I see that those masses are possible for precursor (ZAMS) masses of around 1 Mo, which would mean ages > 10 Gyr.
I can think of three possibilities:
- base9.3 extrapolates and notes this (in verbose mode)
- we get a more extensive grid from the modelers
- we don't allow it and the sampler just has to draw again
2 should be our longer term goal, though we'll probably always need to
have the code make decent decisions near model boundaries.
of #1 or #3, which is easier?
-Ted
On 7/23/13 4:39 PM, Elliot Robinson wrote:
Assume the Althaus model (lowest mass: 0.45, lowest logAge: ~5.47). If we feed |wdTeffToMassAndRadius| a mass of 0.44777 and a wdCoolLogAge of 4.8345, 9.2.1 will extrapolate based on the two lowest ages for the two lowest mass grids, then extrapolate Teff and radius from the two lowest masses and previously extrapolated values. 9.3.0, on the other hand, will refuse to extrapolate to anything younger or less mass-y than the model grid.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/argiopetech/base/issues/40#issuecomment-21444249.
Ted von Hippel
Department of Physical Sciences Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 600 S. Clyde Morris Boulevard Daytona Beach, FL 32114-3900 386-226-7751
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/argiopetech/base/issues/40#issuecomment-21447565 .
At least for this type of extrapolation, there is little risk. Here's my list (off the top of my head) of extrapolation concern/issues:
does that help? It helps me to think about this.
-Ted
On 7/23/13 6:06 PM, Elliot Robinson wrote:
I'd say #1 at the moment. When I put in the new interp/extrap code (which needs to be an enhancement request if I don't already have it) #3 will be roughly the same difficulty. At that point, the question becomes whether or not we want to be able to short circuit the execution on unwanted extrapolation, and what impact we want that to have (invalidate the star, invalidate the cluster, etc).
Elliot Robinson Email: elliot.robinson@argiopetech.com Phone: (321) 252-9660
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM, tedvh notifications@github.com wrote:
I think the 9.2.1 approach is preferable.
The lowest logAge for the cooling models is generally way, way lower than what we care about, so that extrapolation shouldn't be a problem. I'm surprised any WD ends up in that portion of the HR diagram (central to upper left). As for a WD being this low in mass, that too is impressive. I see that those masses are possible for precursor (ZAMS) masses of around 1 Mo, which would mean ages > 10 Gyr.
I can think of three possibilities:
- base9.3 extrapolates and notes this (in verbose mode)
- we get a more extensive grid from the modelers
- we don't allow it and the sampler just has to draw again
2 should be our longer term goal, though we'll probably always need to
have the code make decent decisions near model boundaries.
of #1 or #3, which is easier?
-Ted
On 7/23/13 4:39 PM, Elliot Robinson wrote:
Assume the Althaus model (lowest mass: 0.45, lowest logAge: ~5.47). If we feed |wdTeffToMassAndRadius| a mass of 0.44777 and a wdCoolLogAge of 4.8345, 9.2.1 will extrapolate based on the two lowest ages for the two lowest mass grids, then extrapolate Teff and radius from the two lowest masses and previously extrapolated values. 9.3.0, on the other hand, will refuse to extrapolate to anything younger or less mass-y than the model grid.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/argiopetech/base/issues/40#issuecomment-21444249.
Ted von Hippel
Department of Physical Sciences Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 600 S. Clyde Morris Boulevard Daytona Beach, FL 32114-3900 386-226-7751
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/argiopetech/base/issues/40#issuecomment-21447565 .
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/argiopetech/base/issues/40#issuecomment-21449716.
Ted von Hippel
Department of Physical Sciences Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 600 S. Clyde Morris Boulevard Daytona Beach, FL 32114-3900 386-226-7751
Wow, that's very useful. I'll integrate this into the interpExtrap issue I'm building. Looks like everything I'm currently working on falls into categories 1 and 2, so I'll go ahead and add some commented logging code for when we're ready to do multi-level logging.
excellent. And thanks for your very organized way of thinking about all of this.
On 7/23/13 6:38 PM, Elliot Robinson wrote:
Wow, that's very useful. I'll integrate this into the interpExtrap issue I'm building. Looks like everything I'm currently working on falls into categories 1 and 2, so I'll go ahead and add some commented logging code for when we're ready to do multi-level logging.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/argiopetech/base/issues/40#issuecomment-21451580.
Ted von Hippel
Department of Physical Sciences Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 600 S. Clyde Morris Boulevard Daytona Beach, FL 32114-3900 386-226-7751
DSED models generate AGBt_zmass values which underflow mass and age in Renedo/Montgomery models. In 4912dc7eb870a1da72983336cc488e9db132139b, Renedo underflows mass and Montgomery underflows age.
Adding a fixed value of 0.1 to AGBt_zmass after calculating seems to work around the issue with the Montgomery models, but does not fix the Renedo models.
Files available here