Open MinhMPA opened 1 year ago
Thank you @MinhMPA. I'm sorry I don't have a lot of time to look into this right now, but I would certainly be interested in reviewing a PR!
Is this simply a nomenclature problem? That is, the resulting HMF is correct, right? But maybe the naming of the growth factor/rate is incorrect?
@steven-murray Right. I think it only affects the growth rate $f(z)$ not being properly normalized to 1 during early matter-domination era. The halo mass functions should still be fine as they are only concerned about the growth factor $D(z)$, which is correctly computed from integral
and then properly normalized to unity at $z=0$.
I can certainly make a PR for this one.
Hi,
I have noticed that the method
growth_rate()
in theclass GrowthFactor
, which claims to compute the linear growth rate $f$ following Eq. (4) of Hamilton (2001), is actually confusing $g(z)$ and $D(z)$.In particular, in Eq. (4) of Hamilton (2001), the last term on the r.h.s. is divided by the $g(z)$. In
growth_rate()
, thereturn
iswith the
growth_factor(z)
actually returns $D(z)=g(z)/(1.0+z)$ by definitionI do have further suggestions for these
growth_rate()
andgrowth_factor()
methods, but I think this could be a quick fix.