-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
Option to use CBVs and better priors #63
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
Option to use CBVs and better priors #63
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Jorge Martínez-Palomera <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jorge Martínez-Palomera <[email protected]>
…o machine-perturbation
Co-authored-by: Christina Hedges <[email protected]>
|
Using smooth CBVs instead of PCA components and adjusting the priors for the perturbation model improved the deviation from the x-axis: sum of the Data points of the 1-1 relation are sources with mismatching mean light curves before and after the time model and sources with spiky features (or added variability) after applying the time model. After narrowing the priors the sources with bad time models are fixed. |
christinahedges
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is 99.999%, I will merge when @jorgemarpa checks that the segments keyword is the desired behavior.


Two small changes/new features:
machine.build_time_model()acceptsother_vectorsas argument to add other type of model components from user-level, e.g. using CBVs as regressors.PerturbationMatrix. The prior follows ~ N(1, 0,5) which enforces "small" deviations from the mean model. This accounts for the mismatch in mean flux we saw before between PSF and PSF-NOVA and reduces the chances to get outlier data points.TODO:
test_perturbation_matrix3d()Requires #60 to be merged first.