| ... | ... | @@ -44,14 +44,14 @@ This is the review page of the Modified Dispersion Relation test implementation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Script | Short description | Status | git hash | Comment | final sign-off |
|
|
|
|
|--------|-------------------|--------|----------|---------|----------------|
|
|
|
|
| [conversion.py](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/conversion.py) | Python script with useful conversion functions | Done | | | <br>Multiple reference to the same paper and Eqn, [here](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/conversion.py#L42) <br>Clean up [from here](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/conversion.py#L62) to [here](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/conversion.py#L85) |
|
|
|
|
| [conversion.py](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/conversion.py) | Python script with useful conversion functions | Done | | | <br>Multiple reference to the same paper and Eqn, [here](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/conversion.py#L42) <br>Clean up [from here](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/conversion.py#L62) to [here](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/conversion.py#L85) **TB:** those are old comment. I think they were about comments not displaying well on gitlab code viewers (they look fine in other python code editors). Can you confirm if that was the problem mentioned?|
|
|
|
|
| [waveform.py](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/waveform.py) | Python script with Bibly compatible LIV waveform implementation | Done | `9bf21cb4` | | :heavy_check_mark: |
|
|
|
|
| [**init**.py](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/\__init_\_.py) | Python initialization scipt | Done | 63e8cad5 | | Looks fine <br> <br> Is the same file to beused in bilby_tgr? |
|
|
|
|
| [**init**.py](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/\__init_\_.py) | Python initialization scipt | Done | 63e8cad5 | | Looks fine <br> <br> Is the same file to beused in bilby_tgr? **TB:** we will need it for bilby_tgr (to import mdr submodule)|
|
|
|
|
| [postprocessing.py](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/postprocessing.py) | Postprocessing PE results | | | | |
|
|
|
|
| [prior.py](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/bilbyLIV/prior.py) | Default prior for MDR | | 8c0f6bbf | |Looks fine :heavy_check_mark: |
|
|
|
|
| [conversion_test.py](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/review/conversion_test.py) | Unit test for conversion functions. [output](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/review/conversion_test.txt) | | 2222d319 for the file and efe1002e for the output| | :heavy_check_mark:Looks fine |
|
|
|
|
| [source_test.py](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/review/source_test.py) | Unit test for source functions. [output](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/review/source_test.txt) | | efe1002e | | :heavy_check_mark:Looks fine |
|
|
|
|
| [prior_test.py](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/review/prior_test.py.py) | Unit test for prior functions. [output](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/review/prior_test.txt) | | efe1002e for output? | | could not find the prior file |
|
|
|
|
| [prior_test.py](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/review/prior_test.py.py) | Unit test for prior functions. [output](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/blob/main/review/prior_test.txt) | | efe1002e for output? | | could not find the prior file **TB:** it appers I have made a mistake while linking to the output file. Balazs fixed the link now|
|
|
|
|
## Tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### 1. [Reproducing O3b results](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/wikis/O3b-Results/Summary)
|
| ... | ... | @@ -61,8 +61,8 @@ Remember that `alpha=1.0` posteriors should look bad for these events - they wou |
|
|
|
| Event | reviewer | wiki page | review status :x: / :heavy_check_mark: | review comment |
|
|
|
|
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ |
|
|
|
|
| GW191204_171526 | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW191204_171526) | |<br> I think we already discussed this in the past about the differences in the $`A_0`$ cases from Bilby LI runs [like this](https://git.ligo.org/tomasz.baka/liv-automation/-/wikis/uploads/793638864a52c6269d894eb00cc30882/GW191204_171526_0.png). Could you please add a note about our final understanding? I believe adding one note on this will be useful as we have similar cases for multiple events and we discussed this feature in detail. <br><br> Another thing is the slight difference in the [Mc estimate](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~haris.k/bilby_pipe/liv/live_review/summarypages/o3b/GW191204_171526/0p0/plots/combined_1d_posterior_chirp_mass.png), I guess we need to note down about this feature also as part of signing off the results. **TB:** I see - the linked pages are older, without all the different posteriors plotted. If you look at this [link](https://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~tomasz.baka/LIV_review/pesummary/GW191204/0.0/html/Comparison_chirp_mass.html), you can see that while there is a difference between LIV and bilby results, bilby-liv and bilby-gr posteriors are looking very similar. The difference must be caused by some bilby settings. I will update the links to point to more in depth histograms.|
|
|
|
|
| GW191222A | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW191222A) | | <br> Shall we check if we are using the same distance priors for both LI and Bilby runs? |
|
|
|
|
| GW200219A | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW200219A) | | <br> $`\chi_{eff}`$ posterior is different, do we understand this? **TB**: I don't think I see what is wrong with the posterior? The one that looks different is reweighted bilby, (no reweighted lal is plotted). The raw samples posteriors look pretty similar.|
|
|
|
|
| GW191222A | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW191222A) | | <br> Shall we check if we are using the same distance priors for both LI and Bilby runs? **TB:** we checked and we are using the same distance priors|
|
|
|
|
| GW200219A | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW200219A) | | <br> $`\chi_{eff}`$ posterior is different, do we understand this? **TB**: chi_eff posteriors for bilby-liv look to me very similar to other ones before reweighting. After reweighting it is broader, but it should not be compared with lal posterior (during o3 only 1D A_alpha posterior was reweighted)|
|
|
|
|
| GW200202A | Krishnendu | [link](O3b-Results/GW200202A) | | <br> $`\chi_{eff}`$ posterior is different, do we understand this? <br> <br> I think it will be also good to compare the prior distributions used for LI and Bilby runs to see these differences are caused by the difference in prior. |
|
|
|
|
| S191109a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S191109a) | | |
|
|
|
|
| S191129a | Naresh | [link](O3b-Results/S191129a) | | |
|
| ... | ... | @@ -76,5 +76,5 @@ The script in `main/review/injections` can be used to submit the injection runs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Event | Reviewer | Wiki page | Review status :x: / :heavy_check_mark: | Review comment |
|
|
|
|
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ |
|
|
|
|
| GW190513-like (GR) | Krishnendu | [link](InjectionRuns/GR/GW190513_like) | | <br> mostly looks fine, please make comparison pages between Gaussian and 0noise cases if needed. Just by comparing with eye no noticable difference found. **BC:** Comparison pages have now been added to the wiki page ([A_0p0](https://ligo.gravity.cf.ac.uk/~balazs.cirok/GW190513-like/GR_injections/a0p0_comparing_with_and_without_noise/html/Comparison_A_alpha.html), [A_0p5](https://ligo.gravity.cf.ac.uk/~balazs.cirok/GW190513-like/GR_injections/a0p5_comparing_with_and_without_noise/html/Comparison_A_alpha.html)). |
|
|
|
|
| GW190513-like (GR) | Krishnendu | [link](InjectionRuns/GR/GW190513_like) | | <br> mostly looks fine, please make comparison pages between Gaussian and 0noise cases if needed. Just by comparing with eye no noticable difference found. **TB:** Balazs has now created comparison pages, like requested ([example](https://ligo.gravity.cf.ac.uk/~balazs.cirok/GW190513-like/GR_injections/a0p0_comparing_with_and_without_noise/html/Comparison_A_alpha.html))|
|
|
|
|
| GW190513-like (non-GR) | Naresh | [link](InjectionRuns/NonGR/GW190513_like) | | | |
|
|
\ No newline at end of file |
