Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Model for the power from radio sources as a function of the flux cut #21

Open
dpole opened this issue Jun 6, 2019 · 25 comments · May be fixed by #28
Open

Model for the power from radio sources as a function of the flux cut #21

dpole opened this issue Jun 6, 2019 · 25 comments · May be fixed by #28

Comments

@dpole
Copy link
Contributor

dpole commented Jun 6, 2019

We have received a request for this model, but details are not clear.
To potential users, please express any need that could be not obvious (or feel free to mark down also the obvious ones).
To radio sources experts, please provide information about the functional form (and, of course, the parameters) that we should use in the implementation
Thanks!

@ajvanengelen
Copy link

ajvanengelen commented Jun 6, 2019

I have a routine that does this for the Tucci et al 2010 C2EX model, which is the model used by the ACT team for this purpose. I am happy to write it into the fgspectra library. It would be helpful for someone who is already working with this package to write a function prototype (i.e. just the definition line for the routine) so that it meshes with the rest of the software in the package,

@dpole
Copy link
Contributor Author

dpole commented Jun 6, 2019

Great, thanks. We are finalizing the API in these days. Once we are done, I'll prepare a prototype for you.
In the meanwhile people should feel free to provide further inputs.

@ajvanengelen
Copy link

Sounds great! Like I said in an earlier email, what I have boils down to maybe three or four lines of code, so the work will really be in just setting up the structure to put it into the right place.

@erminiacalabrese
Copy link

Hi both, sorry for being late in responding. People are requesting the ability of predicting radio power given a specific flux cut. Alex you have code for it and in terms of interface with fgspectra this should simply predict the amplitude of the radio sources which would enter as one of the parameters of the full foreground model.

@dpole
Copy link
Contributor Author

dpole commented Jun 13, 2019

Hi, we have converged on the API (and also the internal structure). We can now prepare a template for this component. In order to do that, we need to know something about the model. In particular, it is important to understand if you can factorize the multipole dependence and the frequency dependence.
@ajvanengelen or someone else, can you give us some information in this respect?

@erminiacalabrese
Copy link

erminiacalabrese commented Jun 13, 2019

Yes, these sources are just shot noise, so a flat Cl (ell(ell+1)/2piCl in Dl) and scale in frequency with a beta=-0.5 .

@dpole
Copy link
Contributor Author

dpole commented Jun 13, 2019

So the only variable is the Cl value as a function of the flux cut?

@erminiacalabrese
Copy link

The variable is the amplitude of Cl at ell=3000 (which can be predicted for a given flux cut) but varies as free amplitude for the CMB likelihood. The frequency index can be fixed for now.

@ajvanengelen
Copy link

ajvanengelen commented Jun 13, 2019 via email

@erminiacalabrese
Copy link

I don't know yet. We could think of implementing some automatic calculation going via flux cut but for now I'd keep it simple and give people the option of doing predictions but also varying an amplitude.

@dpole
Copy link
Contributor Author

dpole commented Jun 13, 2019

In this case we don't need any special tool. We just have to combine a power-law SED with a white cl. We only need the latter, I can take care of it.

@ajvanengelen
Copy link

ajvanengelen commented Jun 13, 2019 via email

@erminiacalabrese
Copy link

Exactly, and that can then be used for dusty sources and radio sources separately.

@dpole
Copy link
Contributor Author

dpole commented Jun 13, 2019

Ok, so I think we should implement two separate models. One that takes the amplitude of the white spectrum as a free parameter and the another that takes the flux cut as free parameter. Right?
I can easily take care of the former and prepare the skeleton of the latter

@jcolinhill
Copy link
Collaborator

Just to check, this should be a power-law in flux units, right? (c.f. Sec. 2.5, Eq. 13 of Dunkley et al 2013) It seems like the power-law implementation in fgspectra currently assumes a power-law in RJ temperature units.

@dpole
Copy link
Contributor Author

dpole commented Jun 14, 2019

Right, thanks for pointing this out. In this case it is just a redefinition of beta, but we should double check the units for components we recently added

@dpole dpole mentioned this issue Nov 11, 2019
@giuspugl
Copy link

Also ,
I have available radio sources number counts from 2 to 150 GHz , I've used them for Polarbear . can share with you guys if needed.

@mabitbol mabitbol linked a pull request Feb 7, 2020 that will close this issue
@msyriac
Copy link
Member

msyriac commented Nov 6, 2020

@giuspugl do you maybe have code for the power spectra that you could contribute here?

@giuspugl
Copy link

giuspugl commented Nov 6, 2020

Isn't it what I have already implemented in #34 ?

@msyriac
Copy link
Member

msyriac commented Nov 6, 2020

Ah missed it, great!

@dpole
Copy link
Contributor Author

dpole commented Nov 9, 2020

Thank you Peppe. We should then proceed and merge PR #34
I had a look at your code, I think that before merging

  • we should refactor a bit the code to make it coherent with the rest of the FGSpectra APIs -- I can assist you with that.
  • Most important, we should double check that the code does what we need.
    • only radio point sources are considered (in particular, no dusty star forming galaxies)
    • the user should provide the flux cut for each of the frequencies to be evaluated
    • regardless of the flux cuts, the sources at different frequencies are assumed 100% correlated

Please @msyriac, and anybody else, confirm that this is OK (and @giuspugl confirm that I'm understanding your code correctly) -- a thumb up is enough. Thanks!

@giuspugl
Copy link

Yes the function estimate_autospectra does exactly that .

Not sure what you mean here by the sources at different frequencies are assumed 100% correlated.

@msyriac
Copy link
Member

msyriac commented Nov 11, 2020

I couldn't find an example or test in #34 to see how the API is meant to be used ; could you add one for the auto and cross?

@dpole
Copy link
Contributor Author

dpole commented Nov 11, 2020

@msyriac , as I mentioned before, the api should probably change, for coherence with the rest of the library.

@giuspugl , the power in a cross spectrum is the product of the sqrt of the power in the two autos. This is correct if the sources at the two frequencies are exactly the same and have all the same scaling with frequency

@giuspugl
Copy link

giuspugl commented Nov 19, 2020

@dpole For time being the cross spectra implemented are related to the flux cuts and the observed SED of radio sources. In
https://github.com/giuspugl/fgspectra/blob/edc014a42047b02327a7ceaaf61cea8fbdad7c5c/fgspectra/frequency.py#L167, you can see the current implementation which essentially doesn't rely on the assumption of having the sources 100% correlated, i.e. cross spectrum != product of the sqrt of the power in the two autos. Of course we can discuss if this is a feature we want to include..

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants