Parameter scan

[fiedl]

We do not know the actual ice properties of the hole ice, yet.

How do the angular acceptance plots look like for different hole ice parameters?

• [x] Import script.
• [ ] Document script.
• [x] Parallelise such that it can run as array job on the cluster.
• [x] Run rough scan on the cluster.
• [x] Run detailed scan on the best region of the parameter space. -> Run a with better resolution and more photons.
• [x] Run detailed scan on the region of Martin's best parameters.
• [x] Run a with better resolution and more photons.
• [x] Plot results.
• [ ] Document results in README.

Results

[2018-07-21 16:38:53] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_reference_curve_scan_contours.py ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan
best values:
  LLH: -633.315809421
  esca = 1.3m
  r = 1.0 r_dom

[2018-07-21 16:44:04] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../../results/parameter_scan/esca1.0_r1.0rdom_abs100

[fiedl]

The angular acceptance plots do not look too well. In fact, they do not show any of the expected hole ice effects.

This is a plot with extreme hole ice parameters, i.e. almost instant scattering and absorption within the hole ice:

A detailed scan of the right hand side region where the photons come from below the detector, i.e. where the hole ice effect should be max. Also increased distance to 10m to increase the effect. But this does not look too convincing as well:

[fiedl]

There have been issues when running the simulation on the gpu cluster that needed to be resolved first: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/14, https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/16

Now, the plot looks a lot more like expected. This is for abs=0.1, sca=0.1, dst=1.0m:

[fiedl]

• [x] https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/17 needs to be fixed before running an accurate scan.
• [x] Also https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/20 should be done before running a detailed scan.
• [x] Optionally consider https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/2.

[fiedl]

Results of rough parameter scan: https://github.com/fiedl/diplomarbeit/commit/891bcbdc5d9f2c1aca0c75d73e18b988e6f4e5d5

[fiedl]

Parameter scan over scattering length and column radius

• The definition of hole-ice parameters has been changed from relative to absolute values (https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/45)
• New parameter scan over scattering length and column radius
• Absorption length is not to be scanned and needs to be set to a high value in order to have absorption not interfering

[fiedl]

Run on the cluster

[2018-03-12 15:29:08] fiedl@wgs16 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study master ⚡
▶ git pull

[2018-03-12 15:29:21] fiedl@wgs16 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/clsim sf/hole-ice-2018
▶ git pull

[2018-03-12 15:29:50] fiedl@wgs16 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/software/icecube-simulation-V05-00-07/debug_build
▶ ./env-shell.sh

[2018-03-12 15:30:46] fiedl@wgs16 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/software/icecube-simulation-V05-00-07/debug_build/clsim
▶ make

[2018-03-12 15:36:21] fiedl@wgs16 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/ParameterScan master ⚡
▶ ./run.rb --submit-to-cluster

[fiedl]

best fit to reference plot:

{:cluster=>true,
 :hole_ice_scattering_length=>0.09000000000000008,
 :hole_ice_absorption_length=>100.0,
 :hole_ice_radius=>0.1651,
 :distance=>1.0,
 :plane_wave=>true,
 :number_of_photons=>100000.0,
 :number_of_runs=>2.0,
 :number_of_parallel_runs=>2.0,
 :angles=>[0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 90, 120, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180],
 :run_id=>"Run-2018-hiHoh7uf",
 :started_at=>"2018-03-13 23:34:34 +0100",
 :gcd_file=>
  "$I3_TESTDATA/sim/GeoCalibDetectorStatus_IC86.55380_corrected.i3.gz",
 :ice_model_file=>"$I3_SRC/clsim/resources/ice/spice_mie",
 :seed=>123456,
 :hole_ice_cylinder_positions=>[[-256.02301025390625, -521.281982421875, 0]],
 :hole_ice_cylinder_radii=>[0.1651],
 :cylinder_scattering_lengths=>[0.09000000000000008],
 :cylinder_absorption_lengths=>[100.0],
 :hole_ice_radius_in_dom_radii=>1.0,
 :hole_ice_effective_scattering_length=>1.5,
 :dom_index=>[1, 1],
 :dom_position=>[-256.02301025390625, -521.281982421875, 500],
 :hole_ice=>:simulation,
 # ...
}

[fiedl]

Contour plot

Contour plot (https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/37) of parameter scan agreements with reference plot (https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/10, https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/6)

fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/AngularAcceptance/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot.rb ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan
▶ python create_contour_plot.py parameter_scan.txt

[fiedl]

Simulation performance

For each parameter set, 30e5 photons are propagated (1e5 photons per run, 2 runs per angle, 15 angles).

As this looks more like fluctuations, the leading factor appears to be the specific cluster worker the job has run on.

[fiedl]

Another likelihood measure

See also notes: 2018-03-16.

For large binomial coefficients, the following substitution with gamma functions can be used for computational reasons.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_coefficient#Binomial_coefficient_in_programming_languages

[fiedl]

Gauging

Gauging measurement

[2018-03-27 18:41:14] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/FiringRange master ⚡
▶ ./run.rb --distance=1.0 --number-of-photons=1e4 --number-of-runs=10 --number-of-parallel-runs=10 --angle=0 --plane-wave --no-hole-ice --cpu
[35, 31, 33, 37, 49, 33, 50, 35, 33, 46]

[2018-03-27 18:49:31] fiedl@trex01 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/FiringRange master ⚡
▶ ./run.rb --distance=1.0 --number-of-photons=1e5 --number-of-runs=10 --number-of-parallel-runs=10 --angle=0 --plane-wave --no-hole-ice
[363, 340, 387, 402, 389, 389, 387, 399, 413, 381]

[2018-03-27 18:59:46] fiedl@trex01 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/FiringRange master ⚡
▶ ./run.rb --distance=1.0 --number-of-photons=1e6 --number-of-runs=10 --number-of-parallel-runs=10 --angle=0 --plane-wave --no-hole-ice
[4022, 4061, 3937, 3795, 3876, 3935, 4011, 3993, 3972, 4065]

From local run: k = 382, n = 10 * 1e4 = 1e5, p_0 = 0.00382

From gpu run: k = 3850, n = 10 * 1e5, p_0 = 0.003850

From gpu run with more photons: k = 39667, n = 10 * 1e6, p_0 = 0.0039667

[fiedl]

Contour plot

Contour plot (https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/37) of parameter scan agreements with reference plot (https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/10, https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/6) with new likelihood function (https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/12#issuecomment-376179961) and gauging parameter (https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/12#issuecomment-376580354):

[2018-03-27 19:18:09] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/AngularAcceptance/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot.rb ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan
▶ python create_contour_plot.py parameter_scan.txt

p_0 = 0.003850:

p_0 = 0.0039667:

Parameter ranges (https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/commit/ab7a405618670f12d8e7998d5755dfee4ff0985a#diff-9ea30b06aaea5dc7e4a832f0329a9956)

effective_scattering_length_range: [0.02, 0.1, 0.2, 0.35, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.5, 3.0, 3.3, 3.5],
hole_ice_radius_range_in_dom_radii: [0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0]

[fiedl]

1D agreement plots

[2018-03-28 13:18:31] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/AngularAcceptance/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot.rb ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan
▶ python create_agreement_plot_for_scattering_lengths.py parameter_scan.txt

[fiedl]

Parameter-detail scan of Martin's region

Repeat the parameter scan for this parameter region:

• effective scattering length: 0.01m to 0.20m
• hole-ice radius: 0.1 to 2.0 dom radii
• absorption length: 100m

Martin's best parameters are:

• effective scattering length: 0.05m
• hole-ice radius: 0.5 dom radii

Configuration: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/commit/ab7a405618670f12d8e7998d5755dfee4ff0985a (2018-03-15)

options.merge!({
  effective_scattering_length_range: (0.01..0.20).step(0.01).to_a.collect { |x| x.round(2) },
  hole_ice_radius_range_in_dom_radii: (0.1..2.0).step(0.1).to_a.collect { |x| x.round(2) },
  absorption_length_range: [100],
  distance_range: [1.0],
  number_of_photons: 1e5,
  number_of_runs: 2,
  number_of_parallel_runs: 2,
  angles: [0,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,90,120,140,150,160,170,180]
})

Submission:

[2018-03-15 14:51:46] fiedl@wgs16 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/ParameterScan master ⚡
▶ ./run.rb --submit-to-cluster

[fiedl]

Contour plot of the detail scan

[2018-03-28 14:48:59] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/AngularAcceptance master ⚡
▶ lib/plot.rb ~/hole-ice-study/results/2018-03-15_parameter_detail_scan

The best parameters appear to be:

• effective scattering length: 0.2m
• hole-ice radius: 0.8 dom radii

But the agreement is worse than for the previous scan area: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/12#issuecomment-376609490

The angular-acceptance plot of the best-parameter run does confirm this: It does look rather bad.

This suggests that the parameter area of Martin's best parameters is not in agreement with the hole-ice approximation used in current clsim.

[fiedl]

Detailed scan of region with best agreement to reference curve

Contour plot of the rough scan: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/12#issuecomment-376609490

Best region:

• effective scattering length: 0.6m to 2.2m
• hole-ice radius: 0.8 to 1.7 dom radii

Configuration:

  # Parameter range configuration
  #
  options.merge!({
    effective_scattering_length_range: (0.6..2.2).step(0.05).to_a.collect { |x| x.round(2) },
    hole_ice_radius_range_in_dom_radii: (0.8..1.7).step(0.1).to_a.collect { |x| x.round(2) },
    absorption_length_range: [100],
    distance_range: [1.0],
    number_of_photons: 1e5,
    number_of_runs: 2,
    number_of_parallel_runs: 2,
    angles: [0,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,90,120,140,150,160,170,180]
  })
  dom_radius = 0.16510
  mean_scattering_angle_cosine = 0.94
  options.merge!({
    scattering_length_range: options[:effective_scattering_length_range].collect { |s| s * ( 1 - 0.94) },
    hole_ice_radius_range: options[:hole_ice_radius_range_in_dom_radii].collect { |n| n * dom_radius }
  })

Submission:

[2018-03-28 17:11:15] fiedl@wgs16 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/ParameterScan master ⚡
▶ ./run.rb --submit-to-cluster

[fiedl]

Results of the detailed scan of the region with best agreement to the reference curve

[2018-03-28 19:45:09] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/AngularAcceptance master ⚡
▶ lib/plot.rb ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_detail_scan_of_best_agreement_region

It almost looks like they've just used 1m effective scattering length and 1 dom radius as hole-ice radius to generate the reference curve.

Best agreement:

[2018-03-28 19:51:58] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/AngularAcceptance master ⚡
▶ open ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_detail_scan_of_best_agreement_region/./esca1.15_r1.0rdom_abs100/data/plot_with_reference.png

1-1 result:

[2018-03-28 19:52:51] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/AngularAcceptance master ⚡
▶ open ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_detail_scan_of_best_agreement_region/esca1.0_r1.0rdom_abs100/data/plot_with_reference.png

Note that the error bars in these plots still use the chi-squared agreement rather than the new likelihood. I.e. they falsely assume a gaussian distribution.

[fiedl]

Parameter scan with pencil beam rather than plane waves

Same configuration of the detailed-scan area:

  # Parameter range configuration
  #
  options.merge!({
    effective_scattering_length_range: (0.6..2.2).step(0.05).to_a.collect { |x| x.round(2) },
    hole_ice_radius_range_in_dom_radii: (0.8..1.7).step(0.1).to_a.collect { |x| x.round(2) },
    absorption_length_range: [100],
    distance_range: [1.0],
    number_of_photons: 1e5,
    number_of_runs: 2,
    number_of_parallel_runs: 2,
    angles: [0,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,90,120,140,150,160,170,180]
  })
  dom_radius = 0.16510
  mean_scattering_angle_cosine = 0.94
  options.merge!({
    scattering_length_range: options[:effective_scattering_length_range].collect { |s| s * ( 1 - 0.94) },
    hole_ice_radius_range: options[:hole_ice_radius_range_in_dom_radii].collect { |n| n * dom_radius }
  })

But without --plane-wave switch: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/commit/b814ddc9de7bdef89fac8fe9e1446204629e3682

Submission:

[2018-03-28 20:12:12] fiedl@wgs16 ~SCRATCH/hole-ice-study/scripts/ParameterScan master ⚡
▶ git pull
▶ ./run.rb --submit-to-cluster

Results: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/commit/7f04e9627d16091fb9bf03e1a2d0c32ebe92247b

Gauge measurement of p_0:

[2018-03-29 00:00:45] fiedl@kepler01 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/FiringRange master ⚡
▶ ./run.rb --distance=1.0 --number-of-photons=1e5 --number-of-runs=10 --number-of-parallel-runs=10 --angle=0 --no-hole-ice
[4392, 4647, 4483, 4475, 4422, 4358, 4323, 4456, 4410, 4534]

▶ ./run.rb --distance=1.0 --number-of-photons=1e6 --number-of-runs=10 --number-of-parallel-runs=10 --angle=0 --no-hole-ice
[44812, 44710, 45124, 44760, 44874, 45177, 45163, 45421, 45148, 44890]

# python
import numpy as np
k = np.sum([4392, 4647, 4483, 4475, 4422, 4358, 4323, 4456, 4410, 4534])
n = 10 * 1e5
p_0 = k / n
0.044499999999999998

k = np.sum([44812, 44710, 45124, 44760, 44874, 45177, 45163, 45421, 45148, 44890])
n = 10 * 1e6
p_0 = k / n
0.045007900000000003

Contour plot:

[2018-03-29 00:07:37] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/AngularAcceptance master ⚡
▶ lib/plot.rb ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_details_scan_of_best_agreement_region_pencil_beam

p_0 = 0.044499999999999998:

p_0 = 0.045007900000000003:

Looks like this is not the best region for a pencil beam.

[fiedl]

Parameter scan with pencil beam for wider parameter region

Same region as: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/12#issuecomment-376609490

Configuration: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/commit/21324f0677476faf7271c713652adb469871aabe

  # Parameter range configuration
  #
  options.merge!({
    effective_scattering_length_range: (0.5..3.5).step(0.5).to_a.collect { |x| x.round(2) },
    hole_ice_radius_range_in_dom_radii: (0.5..2.5).step(0.5).to_a.collect { |x| x.round(2) },
    absorption_length_range: [100],
    distance_range: [1.0],
    number_of_photons: 1e5,
    number_of_runs: 2,
    number_of_parallel_runs: 2,
    angles: [0,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,90,120,140,150,160,170,180]
  })
  dom_radius = 0.16510
  mean_scattering_angle_cosine = 0.94
  options.merge!({
    scattering_length_range: options[:effective_scattering_length_range].collect { |s| s * ( 1 - 0.94) },
    hole_ice_radius_range: options[:hole_ice_radius_range_in_dom_radii].collect { |n| n * dom_radius }
  })

Submission:

[2018-03-29 00:20:21] fiedl@wgs16 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/ParameterScan master ⚡
▶ git pull
▶ ./run.rb --submit-to-cluster

Results: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/commit/fd6acbf4fa1cef4c4755f03f19b2002784546171

Contour plot:

[2018-03-29 00:43:28] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/AngularAcceptance master ⚡
▶ lib/plot.rb ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan_pencil_beam

Even the best result looks as bad as this:

=> The reference curve appears to have been created using plane waves not pencil beams.

[fiedl]

Sigma contours

I would like to create a plot like this for the parameter scan: https://wiki.icecube.wisc.edu/index.php/File:8yr_diffuse_numu_scan_astro_cutoff_fix_bestfit_.png

https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/commit/e3bfbc40f8eecd8e868585188b53a01f66a29ce0

This doesn't look right. The red lines represent the sigma contours, but the area appears much too small.

The uncertainty does not consider systematical issues, i.e. the reference simulation might differ from the new simulation in a way that is not parameterized in this scan.

[fiedl]

Parameter scan with less photons

Repeat scan https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/12#issuecomment-376910272 with less photons (1e4 rather than 1e5 per run and angle). What effect does this have on the contour plot?

Configuration: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/commit/114d0c38a8a2fd390edb9e89575aa88bd4366705

  # Parameter range configuration
  #
  options.merge!({
    effective_scattering_length_range: (0.6..2.2).step(0.05).to_a.collect { |x| x.round(2) },
    hole_ice_radius_range_in_dom_radii: (0.8..1.7).step(0.1).to_a.collect { |x| x.round(2) },
    absorption_length_range: [100],
    distance_range: [1.0],
    number_of_photons: 1e4,
    number_of_runs: 2,
    number_of_parallel_runs: 2,
    angles: [0,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,90,120,140,150,160,170,180]
  })
  dom_radius = 0.16510
  mean_scattering_angle_cosine = 0.94
  options.merge!({
    scattering_length_range: options[:effective_scattering_length_range].collect { |s| s * ( 1 - 0.94) },
    hole_ice_radius_range: options[:hole_ice_radius_range_in_dom_radii].collect { |n| n * dom_radius }
  })

Submission:

[2018-04-09 17:06:12] fiedl@wgs16 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/ParameterScan master ⚡
▶ git pull
▶ ./run.rb --submit-to-cluster

Results:

• plane waves: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/commit/13e808023f06df3fc80db5e6250a498fc26caf58
• pencil beam: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/commit/5fe1b92c6b026a1e075fdd725bd5f370c907c90f

Gauging:

• p_0 = 0.0039667 # plane waves
• p_0 = 0.045007900000000003 # pencil beam

See also: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/12#issuecomment-376580354

Plot:

[2018-04-10 15:34:46] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/AngularAcceptance master ⚡
▶ lib/plot.rb ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan_of_best_agreement_region_with_less_photons_plane_waves
▶ lib/plot.rb ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan_of_best_agreement_region_with_less_photons_pencil_beam

Plane waves:

Pencil beam:

Compare: https://github.com/fiedl/hole-ice-study/issues/12#issuecomment-379781187

[fiedl]

Comparing contour plots with shared color bar

[2018-04-11 17:07:25] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/AngularAcceptance master ⚡
▶ lib/plot.rb ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan_of_best_agreement_region_with_less_photons_plane_waves ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_detail_scan_of_best_agreement_region

# recreate plot after changing the python script
▶ python lib/create_contour_plot.py ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan_of_best_agreement_region_with_less_photons_plane_waves/parameter_scan_agreements.txt ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_detail_scan_of_best_agreement_region/parameter_scan_agreements.txt

[fiedl]

Another scan with plane waves

After performance optimizations, I'm starting another parameter scan.

# parameter range:
effective_scattering_length_range: [0.01] + (0.1..3.5).step(0.1).to_a.collect { |x| x.round(2) },
hole_ice_radius_range_in_dom_radii: (0.05..2.0).step(0.05).to_a.collect { |x| x.round(2) },

Submission:

[2018-07-20 14:58:56] fiedl@kepler00 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/ParameterScan
▶ git pull
▶ qsub -l gpu -l tmpdir_size=10G -l s_rt=0:29:00 -l h_rss=2G -m ae -t 1-1440 batch-job.sh

[fiedl]

[2018-07-20 16:07:48] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./convert_options_txt_to_json.rb ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan
▶ ./calculate_reference_plot_llhs.py ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan

[fiedl]

[2018-07-20 16:19:41] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_reference_curve_scan_contours.py ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan
best values:
  LLH: -105.810004396
  esca = 1.0m
  r = 1.0 r_dom

[fiedl]

Best agreement:

[2018-07-20 16:34:12] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../../results/parameter_scan/esca1.0_r1.0rdom

[fiedl]

bottom right corner: strong hole ice

[2018-07-20 16:37:31] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../../results/parameter_scan/esca0.2_r1.8rdom_abs100

[fiedl]

top left corner: weak hole ice

[2018-07-20 16:39:04] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../../results/parameter_scan/esca3.0_r0.1rdom

[fiedl]

upper right: when increasing the radius while increasing the scattering length, one effect strengthens while the other weakens the hole-ice effect. Thus, this is still a good agreement:

[2018-07-20 16:40:45] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../../results/parameter_scan/esca2.8_r1.5rdom_abs100

[fiedl]

[2018-07-20 22:38:09] fiedl@kepler00 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/ParameterScan
▶ git pull
▶ ./run.rb --submit-to-cluster

[2018-07-21 16:28:46] fiedl@wgs00 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/ParameterScan
▶ rm -r $SCRATCH/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan/esca*
▶ mv cluster-results/esca* $SCRATCH/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan/

[fiedl]

[2018-07-21 16:36:20] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./convert_options_txt_to_json.rb ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan
▶ ./calculate_reference_plot_llhs.py ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan

[fiedl]

[2018-07-21 16:38:53] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_reference_curve_scan_contours.py ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan
best values:
  LLH: -633.315809421
  esca = 1.3m
  r = 1.0 r_dom

[fiedl]

Best agreement:

[2018-07-21 16:40:21] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../../results/parameter_scan/esca1.3_r1.0rdom_abs100

[2018-07-21 16:44:04] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../../results/parameter_scan/esca1.0_r1.0rdom_abs100

[fiedl]

bottom right corner: strong hole ice

[2018-07-21 16:45:31] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../../results/parameter_scan/esca0.2_r1.8rdom_abs100

[fiedl]

top left corner: weak hole ice

[2018-07-21 17:16:31] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../../results/parameter_scan/esca3.0_r0.1rdom_abs100/

[fiedl]

upper right: when increasing the radius while increasing the scattering length, one effect strengthens while the other weakens the hole-ice effect. Thus, this is still a good agreement:

[2018-07-21 17:17:30] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../../results/parameter_scan/esca2.8_r1.5rdom_abs100

[fiedl]

Another scan with pencil beam

As performance is now good, I'm retrying the pencil-beam scan.

• [x] Prepare run.rb for pencil beams
• [x] Rescan
• [x] Plot contours
• [x] Plot best angular-acceptance plot
• [x] Make sure to reset run.rb later to --plane-wave mode

[fiedl]

[2018-07-21 17:37:46] fiedl@kepler00 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/ParameterScan
▶ git pull
▶ ./run.rb --submit-to-cluster

[2018-07-21 18:43:24] fiedl@kepler00 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/ParameterScan
▶ rm -r ../../results/parameter_scan_pencil_beam/esca*
▶ mv cluster-results/esca* ../../results/parameter_scan_pencil_beam/

[fiedl]

[2018-07-21 18:56:19] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./convert_options_txt_to_json.rb ../../results/parameter_scan_pencil_beam
▶ ./calculate_reference_plot_llhs.py ../../results/parameter_scan_pencil_beam

[fiedl]

[2018-07-21 19:00:51] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_reference_curve_scan_contours.py ~/hole-ice-study/results/parameter_scan_pencil_beam
best values:
  LLH: -5575.61508961
  esca = 3.5m
  r = 2.5 r_dom

Best values:

[2018-07-21 19:06:55] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../../results/parameter_scan_pencil_beam/esca3.5_r2.5rdom_abs100

[2018-07-21 19:07:43] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../../results/parameter_scan_pencil_beam/esca2.5_r1.5rdom_abs100

[fiedl]

Starting photons from farther away

[2018-07-24 15:41:35] fiedl@trex01 /afs/ifh.de/group/amanda/scratch/fiedl/hole-ice-study/scripts/AngularAcceptance
▶ ./run.rb --cluster --hole-ice-scattering-length=0.06 --hole-ice-radius=0.1651 --distance=2.0 --number-of-photons=1e6 --number-of-runs=1 --number-of-parallel-runs=1 --angles=0,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,90,120,140,150,160,170,180 --plane-wave

[fiedl]

[2018-07-24 16:06:33] fiedl@fiedl-mbp ~/hole-ice-study/scripts/lib master ⚡
▶ ./convert_options_txt_to_json.rb ../AngularAcceptance/results/current
▶ ./plot_angular_acceptance.py ../AngularAcceptance/results/current

One would need another gauging simulation. But this plot already shows that on the left-hand side there are still too many hits.