Ia der term #1137

CarterDW · 2023-11-14T16:19:06Z

I implemented in pyccl/ept.py a new IA k2 derivative term, adding it to the existing auto and cross correlations with a ck constant defined in pyccl/tracers.py based on the pre-existing c1 constant. The user can either choose to use an in-built CCL k2 term, or call FAST-PT and use the newly implemented FAST-PT derivative term. This is set to use CCL's term by default so older versions of FAST-PT can still be used with ept.py.

I also added in pyccl/ept.py functionality to check if the installed FAST-PT can be imported, and then checks if the installed FAST-PT has the newest derivative term if the user wishes to use the FAST-PT derivative term

coveralls · 2023-11-27T09:24:23Z

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 7133713817

0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
Overall coverage decreased (-0.2%) to 97.272%

Totals
Change from base Build 7020570041:	-0.2%
Covered Lines:	6524
Relevant Lines:	6707

💛 - Coveralls

damonge · 2023-11-27T09:39:35Z

@CarterDW it seems like flake8 is failing, and the coverage (i.e. lines of code tested by new unit tests) has fallen a bit. I may be able to look at the actual implementation towards the end of the week.

Attempted reformatting to fit flake8 format

Attempted to better fit flake8 formatting requirements

CarterDW · 2023-11-28T20:11:32Z

Im not sure about the coverage but I went through and reformatted the code so hopefully it should pass flake8 now

jablazek · 2023-11-28T21:50:51Z

@damonge , I am talking with @CarterDW about this PR now and will also do a code review ASAP. Would also be great to get your expert eyes on it (even quickly).

Changed the statements from lines 192-203 so that it fits flake8

damonge

Thanks a lot @CarterDW and @jablazek (and apologies for the delay!). Just a couple of comments.

Also, we probably want to add a benchmark test, the same way we did for the previous FastPT terms.

BTW, I remember before FastPT couldn't compute all the galaxy x IA perturbative terms. Is that still the case? I remember we have a TODO for this :-)

damonge · 2024-01-02T09:25:03Z

pyccl/nl_pt/ept.py

+        # ak power spectrum
+        pksa = {}
+        if 'nonlinear' in [self.ak2_pk_kind]:
+            pksa['nonlinear'] = np.array([cosmo.nonlin_matter_power(
+                                          self.k_s, a)for a in self.a_s])
+        if 'linear' in [self.ak2_pk_kind]:
+            pksa['linear'] = np.array([cosmo.linear_matter_power(self.k_s, a)
+                                      for a in self.a_s])
+        if 'pt' in [self.ak2_pk_kind]:
+            if 'linear' in pksa:
+                pka = pksa['linear']
+            else:
+                pka = np.array([cosmo.linear_matter_power(self.k_s, a)
+                                for a in self.a_s])
+            pka += self._g4T*self.one_loop_dd[0]
+            pksa['pt'] = pka
+        self.pk_ak = pksa[self.ak2_pk_kind]
+


Maybe I missed something, but wouldn't you achieve the same just adding self.ak2_pk_kind to the previous if-else statement, and then doing

self.pk_ak = pks[self.ak2_pk_kind]

?

damonge · 2024-01-02T09:26:13Z

pyccl/nl_pt/ept.py

+        usefptk (::obj:`bool`):) if `True``, will use the FASTPT IA k2
+        term instead of the CCL IA k2 term


Why not require that people have the latest version of FastPT? My first reaction is that this adds unnecessary complexity that will need to be deprecated afterwards anyway (with the headache it entails, since it changes the API).

I think there are two issues. One, for the basic k^2 term, we don't need FAST-PT, and we want the flexibility to choose the P_delta from the options CCL has access to. There may be future versions of this term that need some calculation to be done in FAST-PT.

Two, more generally, do we want to demand the latest (or fairly recent) FAST-PT for all CCL ept users? Probably good in the long term. Right now, FAST-PT is also changing rapidly, and is actually a bit behind in some functionality, so we don't expect all CCL users to actually have access to the bleeding edge.

OK, I see, thanks @jablazek .

Then, how about:

Remove the usefptk option from this function.

Allow for ak2_pk_kind to take an additional option (e.g. 'pt_IA_k2'), in which case the calculator uses the fast-pt prediction.

Then, if users select this option, you check if the fast-pt version allows for it and throw an error if it doesn't. My main aim here is not polluting the API with arguments that we may need to deprecate soon-ish, since they become a headache.

jablazek · 2024-01-02T13:56:58Z

Thanks @damonge! (and Happy New Year!) Indeed, the nl bias x IA terms have been a goal for a long time, and we now have them! Thanks to some work from @CarterDW , as well as from the UTD group and a former student working with me, we have a couple of independent FAST-PT implementations of (most of) these terms. There is an active dev branch of FAST-PT where we are doing the cross checks.

Regarding benchmarks, we can generate the Pks from FAST-PT at a given cosmology and redshift (or two) and then store as a static dat file for comparison. It's not independent, since they both use FAST-PT, but it does test the plumbing and API.

damonge · 2024-01-02T14:05:46Z

Great news! Happy to have those terms in CCL when you think they're ready!

Regarding benchmarks: yep, that sounds good. I agree it's not independent, but it's a good test nevertheless, in case we modify anything further down the line (e.g. interpolation/extrapolation schemes or whatever) that changes the accuracy of the calculation. This is what we did for all the other fast-pt terms (in fact, you can probably build on this benchmark test script and on the script that was used to generate the associated data from fastpt).

damonge · 2024-01-02T14:06:08Z

(and Happy New Year!)

damonge · 2024-02-21T08:36:41Z

@jablazek @CarterDW can I check what the status of this PR is?

damonge · 2024-06-18T08:48:56Z

@CarterDW @jablazek can I check what the status is? Thanks!

CarterDW · 2024-06-18T09:59:58Z

Apologies for not seeing this email before, for the moment I think we’re shelving this PR, as we work to also add in galaxy bias x IA terms and try and fix some strange results, thanks!

…

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 3:49 AM David Alonso ***@***.***> wrote: @CarterDW <https://github.com/CarterDW> @jablazek <https://github.com/jablazek> can I check what the status is? Thanks! — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1137 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBRHUDGLPX4TCY4FUUGXXHDZH7YA3AVCNFSM6AAAAABJPR7G2OVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNZVGU2TINBTGU> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

damonge · 2024-06-18T10:52:11Z

OK, thanks!

jablazek · 2024-06-18T11:48:09Z

Hi @damonge . Sorry for the slow updates. A bit more info: we did our code comparison between the two implementations of the NL bias x IA terms. Most of them agreed, with two exceptions. We have been tracking down the differences and should have that resolved soon.

However, @CarterDW , is there a reason to not finish the PR for the derivative term and then do a separate one for the NL bias terms and the t_ij terms?

CarterDW · 2024-06-18T12:19:46Z

The main concern I would have is the behavior of the derivative term, since that is one of the terms I’ve been looking at as the cause of some divergences in the tracers when it is set to a non zero value. I will try and do some more debugging this week and if I can sort that then I agree, doing just the derivative term should provide no issues.

…

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 6:48 AM Jonathan Blazek ***@***.***> wrote: Hi @damonge <https://github.com/damonge> . Sorry for the slow updates. A bit more info: we did our code comparison between the two implementations of the NL bias x IA terms. Most of them agreed, with two exceptions. We have been tracking down the differences and should have that resolved soon. However, @CarterDW <https://github.com/CarterDW> , is there a reason to not finish the PR for the derivative term and then do a separate one for the NL bias terms and the t_ij terms? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1137 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBRHUDFVWY7MXLRFPUM22S3ZIANA7AVCNFSM6AAAAABJPR7G2OVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNZVHEYDQNBSHE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

damonge · 2024-11-13T11:26:25Z

@CarterDW @jablazek : any updates on this one?

jablazek · 2024-11-13T15:08:28Z

@CarterDW , we sorted out the unexpected high-k behavior , right?

CarterDW · 2024-11-13T18:36:11Z

@jablazek @damonge yes, we figured out the divergent behavior I was seeing, so we should be able to finish this pull request. I'll spend this week resolving some of the things we discussed in here such as changing the implementation of checking for fast-pt, and adding the benchmark checks!

damonge · 2024-11-13T19:05:06Z

OK, great!

dderienzo · 2024-11-22T00:19:33Z

Hello @damonge ! I am new to writing unit tests/benchmarks and wanted to ask you a question. I am trying to write tests to help close out this PR associated with the derivative terms @CarterDW is working on adding in. If I wrote something along the lines of this (using the current update, I know we don't want to continue with the useftptk argument, but just hypothetically):

def test_ept_derivative_eq():
# Compare derivative defined in CCL vs derivative
# defined internally in FAST-PT.
ptc1 = ccl.nl_pt.EulerianPTCalculator(
with_NC = True, with_IA = True,
usefptk = False)
pk1 = ptc1.get_biased_pk2d(TRS['TI'])
ptc2 = ccl.nl_pt.EulerianPTCalculator(
with_NC = True, with_IA = True,
usefptk = True)
pk2 = ptc2.get_biased_pk2d(TRS['TI'])
err = np.abs(pk1/pk2 -1)
assert np.allclose(err, 0, rtol = 0, atol = BBKS_TOLERANCE)

Would this be considered a unit test? My idea was just to compare two pks that will both use the Pak2 derivative term in their corrections, and comparing the built in CCL vs built in FAST-PT term. Would this be rigorous enough or would something along the lines of the script you linked above using data from an edited version of this with the derivative coded in be more rigorous and necessary?

CarterDW and others added 7 commits October 17, 2023 15:20

Added a cder term (not in cross correlations)

bbb8be6

Added derivative contribution to tracers

67b0985

Changed cder to ck

0a1222e

Added unit test functionality for der term

b3f3d91

Merge branch 'LSSTDESC:master' into FixedInstallation

bbab411

changed cder to ck in tracers.py

159f333

Merge branch 'LSSTDESC:master' into IADerTerm

12c253e

CarterDW marked this pull request as ready for review November 17, 2023 17:17

damonge requested review from damonge and jablazek November 27, 2023 09:13

CarterDW added 3 commits November 28, 2023 10:12

Update test_ept_power.py

a0fdac5

Attempted reformatting to fit flake8 format

Update test_ept_power.py

71eb1aa

Reformatted ept.py

037f7d8

Attempted to better fit flake8 formatting requirements

CarterDW added 6 commits November 28, 2023 15:58

Update ept.py

ed65114

Changed the statements from lines 192-203 so that it fits flake8

Update ept.py

fa48fd1

Merge branch 'LSSTDESC:master' into IADerTerm

ee1c8ed

Formatted ept.py

69dbb5f

Formatted ept.py

998a474

Reformatted ept.py for flake8

ffcdef8

damonge reviewed Jan 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Ia der term #1137

Ia der term #1137

CarterDW commented Nov 14, 2023

coveralls commented Nov 27, 2023 •

edited

Loading

damonge commented Nov 27, 2023

CarterDW commented Nov 28, 2023

jablazek commented Nov 28, 2023 •

edited

Loading

damonge left a comment

damonge Jan 2, 2024

damonge Jan 2, 2024

jablazek Jan 2, 2024

damonge Jan 2, 2024

jablazek commented Jan 2, 2024

damonge commented Jan 2, 2024

damonge commented Jan 2, 2024

damonge commented Feb 21, 2024

damonge commented Jun 18, 2024

CarterDW commented Jun 18, 2024 via email

damonge commented Jun 18, 2024

jablazek commented Jun 18, 2024

CarterDW commented Jun 18, 2024 via email

damonge commented Nov 13, 2024

jablazek commented Nov 13, 2024

CarterDW commented Nov 13, 2024

damonge commented Nov 13, 2024

dderienzo commented Nov 22, 2024

		usefptk (::obj:`bool`):) if `True``, will use the FASTPT IA k2
		term instead of the CCL IA k2 term

Ia der term #1137

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Ia der term #1137

Conversation

CarterDW commented Nov 14, 2023

coveralls commented Nov 27, 2023 • edited Loading

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 7133713817

💛 - Coveralls

damonge commented Nov 27, 2023

CarterDW commented Nov 28, 2023

jablazek commented Nov 28, 2023 • edited Loading

damonge left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

damonge Jan 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

damonge Jan 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jablazek Jan 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

damonge Jan 2, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jablazek commented Jan 2, 2024

damonge commented Jan 2, 2024

damonge commented Jan 2, 2024

damonge commented Feb 21, 2024

damonge commented Jun 18, 2024

CarterDW commented Jun 18, 2024 via email

damonge commented Jun 18, 2024

jablazek commented Jun 18, 2024

CarterDW commented Jun 18, 2024 via email

damonge commented Nov 13, 2024

jablazek commented Nov 13, 2024

CarterDW commented Nov 13, 2024

damonge commented Nov 13, 2024

dderienzo commented Nov 22, 2024

coveralls commented Nov 27, 2023 •

edited

Loading

jablazek commented Nov 28, 2023 •

edited

Loading