Home.md

@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ To check the readiness of this pipeline for the analysis of O3 events.
 |[LALInferenceInitCBC.c](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/src/LALInferenceInitCBC.c) | [L2172](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/src/LALInferenceInitCBC.c#L2172) to [L2175](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/src/LALInferenceInitCBC.c#L2175)  [L2210](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/src/LALInferenceInitCBC.c#L2210) to [L2250](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/src/LALInferenceInitCBC.c#L2250)| Sampling options and warning (error) messages added inside the function `LALInferenceInitNonGRParams`| Abhirup & Anuradha G.| **Gupta**: L2172-L2179: Is prior till 20 large enough? L2214-L2218: looks good. <br> **Abhirup**: <br> 1. the current prior range excludes the space for boson stars <br>2.  tmpVal = 0, is at the default prior boundary <br> Perhaps making the prior more symmetric around zero addresses point 1 and keeps the starting value close to the middle of the prior. <br> **Krishnnendu**: <br> 1. The prior range has been increased to [-200, 200], but tmpVal = 0 is kept as it is.| The spin-induced parameters are removed from `LALInferenceInitNonGRParams(` and changed the following lines. <br> These params are added in `LALInferenceModel *LALInferenceInitCBCModel(LALInferenceRunState *state)` at [L793](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/src/LALInferenceInitCBC.c#L793), the prior ranges are fixed at line [L880](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/src/LALInferenceInitCBC.c#L880), following tidal parameter lines from [L1410](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/src/LALInferenceInitCBC.c#L1410) to [L1425](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/src/LALInferenceInitCBC.c#L1425) is changed.<br> As from the current changes, for the one parameter case any of the four parameters cane be sampled (one has to fix the other parameter using fix-parameters). <br> For the two parameter case, either {dQuadMon1, dQuadMon2} or {dQuadMonS, dQuadMonA}. <br> If one passes more than two parameters, the run will end with a exist message|
 |[LALInferenceProposal.c](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/08e05a526d3e2bca780bf4fa08fa83df85209d51/lalinference/src/LALInferenceProposal.c)  | [L98](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/08e05a526d3e2bca780bf4fa08fa83df85209d51/lalinference/src/LALInferenceProposal.c#L98) | added to the list of intrinsic params | |  | |
 |[cbcBayesCompPos.py](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/python/cbcBayesCompPos.py)  | [L59](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/python/cbcBayesCompPos.py#L59) and [L71](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/python/cbcBayesCompPos.py#L71)| `paramNameLatexMap` (convert parameter names to Latex), we define dQuadMon parameter as \delta\kappa <br> added to `clTableParams` (this is to add to the table of confidence levels)| Abhirup & Anuradha G.   |**Gupta**: Just \kappa_s is defined here, why not \kappa_1, \kappa_2, \kappa_a as in bayespputils.py? <br> **Abhirup**: Same question as Anuradha. <br> **Krishnnendu**: <br> 1. All the four parameters are added.   | -------- |
-|[cbcBayesPPAnalysis.py](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/python/cbcBayesPPAnalysis.py) | [L88](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/python/cbcBayesPPAnalysis.py#L88)|Added all four parameters to the list of `posterior_name_to_latex_name` | Abhirup & Anuradha G.|**Gupta**: \kappa_1 and \kappa_2 are also defined here but not \kappa_a. Is this because \kappa_a is always zero in your implimentation? But \kappa_a is defined in bayespputils.py, why? Also, there is a typo, dquadmon2-->dquadmon1. <br> **Abhirup**: Following up on Anuradha's comment, it would be good to keep the implementation as generalised as possible, which means, adding all four parameters in the post-processing codes, wherever possible. <br> **Krishnnendu**: <br> 1. All the four dQuadMon parameters are added and typos are fixed. | -------- |
+|[cbcBayesPPAnalysis.py](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/python/cbcBayesPPAnalysis.py) | [L88](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/python/cbcBayesPPAnalysis.py#L88)|Added all four parameters to the list of `posterior_name_to_latex_name` | Abhirup & Anuradha G.|**Gupta**: \kappa_1 and \kappa_2 are also defined here but not \kappa_a. Is this because \kappa_a is always zero in your implimentation? But \kappa_a is defined in bayespputils.py, why? Also, there is a typo, dquadmon2-->dquadmon1. <br> **Abhirup**: Following up on Anuradha's comment, it would be good to keep the implementation as generalised as possible, which means, adding all four parameters in the post-processing codes, wherever possible. <br> **Krishnnendu**: <br> 1. All the four dQuadMon parameters are added and typos are fixed. **new comments** Gupta: looks good.| -------- |
 |[bayespputils.py](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/python/lalinference/bayespputils.py) | [L148](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/python/lalinference/bayespputils.py#L148) and [L484](https://git.ligo.org/nv.krishnendu/lalsuite/blob/Ks_21March2019/lalinference/python/lalinference/bayespputils.py#L484)| Created a list `spin_induced_quad_terms` and added this to `strongFieldParams` <br> Created corresponding plot labels inside `plot_label(param)` |Abhirup & Anuradha G. |**Gupta**: looks good. <br> **Abhirup**: looks good.| -------- |
 
 ## A detailed summary of revisions made to the review branch: