Irf maker and cut optimiser #2473
Draft
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
ctapipe/irf/optimise.py
Outdated
| def __init__(self, gh_cuts=None, offset_lim=None): | ||
| self.gh_cuts = gh_cuts | ||
| if gh_cuts: | ||
| self.gh_cuts.meta["extname"] = "GH_CUTS" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
extname is the name of a FITS extension. You should't set this in the metadata of the table, but only when writing out, it's the name argument of write.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I got
TypeError: write_table_fits() got an unexpected keyword argument 'name'
when I tried self.gh_cuts.write(out_name, name="GH_CUTS", format="fits", overwrite=overwrite) and I don't find anything about a name argument to table.write, do you mean I should manage the fits file more directly and just cast the tables to hdus?
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
ctapipe/irf/select.py
Outdated
|
|
||
| quality_criteria = List( | ||
| default_value=[ | ||
| ("multiplicity 4", "np.count_nonzero(tels_with_trigger,axis=1) >= 4"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really want a multiplicity cut of 4 by default? I would remove that and only require the valid reconstruction.
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Nov 24, 2023
maxnoe
reviewed
Dec 5, 2023
Tobychev
commented
Jan 15, 2024
LukasBeiske
force-pushed
the
irf-maker
branch
from
643a841
to
7c2efc7
Compare
maxnoe
reviewed
Jan 15, 2024
Closed
maxnoe
reviewed
May 7, 2024
…egression is fixed
LukasBeiske
force-pushed
the
irf-maker
branch
from
52b968c
to
9ea15e3
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As we are planning to produce IRFs on events that were not used to select the GH cut, it makes sense to split the procedure generating IRFs into two tools. Because this splitting results in a large restructuring of the the previous PR on generating IRFs (#2315) that was basically working properly, I open a new PR to preserve the discussion on the old attempt and let its more or less functional code serve as easy reference.