baudren / montepython_public

Public repository for the Monte Python Code
MIT License
65 stars 117 forks source link

Is there a typo in the Planck High TTTEEE #77

Open vitenti opened 7 years ago

vitenti commented 7 years ago

In montepython the prior A dust TE 143 x 217 is:

Planck_highl_TTTEEE.galf_TE_A_143_217_prior_center = 0.3 Planck_highl_TTTEEE.galf_TE_A_143_217_prior_variance = 0.09

But in the Planck XI 2015 paper it says:

center = 0.6 variance = 0.18

and elsewhere (https://wiki.cosmos.esa.int/planckpla2015/index.php/CMB_spectrum_%26_Likelihood_Code) it says:

center = 0.6 variance = 0.018

In CosmoMC it uses the same values as in Planck XI 2015:

param[galfTE143217]=0.6 0 10 0.18 0.1

Does anyone knows if that's a typo or if is there some reason to have a different value in montepython?

s-ilic commented 6 years ago

I know I'm resuscitating an old issue, but I noticed the same thing and I am curious of the reason...

To summarize all the priors I found for this parameter: _in the current version of CosmoMC, by default it's a Gaussian prior of center 0.6 and width 0.18. _in the parameters files of the "official" Planck 2015 chains on the PLA, it is a Gaussian prior of center 0.3 and width 0.09. _in the default parameter files of the current version of MontePython, it is still a Gaussian prior of center 0.3 and width 0.09. _in the Planck XI 2015 paper (page 20 Table 10), it's a Gaussian prior of center 0.6 and width 0.18. _in the official Planck wiki (https://wiki.cosmos.esa.int/planckpla2015/index.php/CMB_spectrum_%26_Likelihood_Code), t's a Gaussian prior of center 0.6 and width 0.018.

I suspect some of them are typos or "old" recommendations, etc...

vitenti commented 6 years ago

My problem here is that by default CosmoMC and MontyPython will give different results for what people expect to be the same likelihood+priors (unless this parameter does not correlate with nothing important...).

s-ilic commented 6 years ago

I got an answer to the same question here : http://cosmocoffee.info/viewtopic.php?p=8380

I think we can consider the problem solved !