Closed HiramHerrera closed 1 year ago
There were a couple of code blocks that I didn't inspect carefully, since they use functions that I'm not familiar with. Have others reviewed this? Are these new mocks much different than the previous once, in terms of quasar luminosities?
@HiramHerrera - thanks for putting together this PR. Could you also add a plot or two of the luminosity function used? It might be useful to have this together with the PR. I only asked for one change, and it is to add a warning or an error when the downsampling is requested to be larger than 1, we do not want this to silently happen without us noticing.
I'm attaching plots comparing the magnitude and redshift distributions obtained by this branch compared to Palanque-Delabrouille et al. (2015).
Also I'm comparing the distributions from EDR mocks compared to actual data. Year 5 Mocks are assumed to follow this same distribution.
The test that is failing is unrelated with this PR and desicode, it seems to be related with Hiram making the PR from within a fork. @sbailey are you ok with us merging this branch with this one test failing?
@alxogm yes, that is fine. I'll let you do the actual merge when you are ready.
This PR adds an option to quickquasars
--dn_dzdm
which expects a 2D table with number of quasars by square degree by redshift and r-band magnitude bins. A default file was added:$DESISIM/py/desisim/data/dn_dzdM_EDR.fits
which contains the expected distribution for Y5 based on SV results.The procedure of this option goes as follows:
This PR also modifies the option
--extinction
by moving its position in thequickquasars
code, and by adding an option that rescales flux in order to mantain the magnitude distribution from the previous file.