galsci / pysm

PySM 3: Sky emission simulations for Cosmic Microwave Background experiments
https://pysm3.readthedocs.io/
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
36 stars 23 forks source link

Import the hensley_draine_2017 model #20

Closed zonca closed 3 years ago

zonca commented 5 years ago

Longer term, it would be nice to import the hensley_draine_2017 dust model, which is possibly the most complex model available in PySM. This could even require changing the architecture of PySM 3.

zonca commented 5 years ago

@bthorne93 are you still interested in working on this? Do you have an estimate of when you would have time to work on this?

b-thorne commented 5 years ago

@zonca Yes, sure. I actually have most of this implemented from when we spoke about it last. I can block off some time to work on this Friday next week, and should be doable in half a day. Would that be alright?

zonca commented 5 years ago

that is great, not much hurry, within 3 weeks would work great

zonca commented 5 years ago

@bthorne93 do you think you'll be able to work on this next week? I am trying to get all the PySM 2 models into PySM 3

zonca commented 4 years ago

@bthorne93 as of 5b124e8 I have implemented all PySM 2 models into PySM 3 except the 3 HD models. Can you please complete the port before the break? if not, can you please point me to your work in progress so I can start from there?

b-thorne commented 4 years ago

@zonca this now exists on the branch hd17. I have the model implemented in a way that is equivalent to PySM v2. However, before making a pull request: it seems that sky.get_emission does not behave in the way I expect.

b-thorne commented 4 years ago

hd17 now cooperates with the new API to assume one channel being evaluated. Will need to be refactored, as currently it holds all the individual frequencies in memory, then integrates over the bandpass.

zonca commented 4 years ago

Thanks! This helps me a lot! I'll pickup from here

b-thorne commented 4 years ago

I just pushed what I had left on my local version, which I think is closer to the correct way of doing it. I'll leave it to you from here, then!

zonca commented 3 years ago

implemented in #37 and #51