You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Even though the skygrid functionalities have been implemented inside pycbc_multi_inspiral, at the moment we can not pass skygrids as input when generating PyGRB workflows.
Unlike our initial tests on GRB170817A, where a single point in the grid is enough. We need this implementation for GRBs that are poorly resolved in the sky.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I started looking at where to change the code and I realised that even generating injections will have to take into account the sky uncertainty. @sebastiangomezlopez told me that @MarcoCusinato and @Thomas-JACQUOT both brought this up on a call.
@pannarale in my view, the sky location of injections would be handled directly by drawing the distribution for ra and dec from either fisher_sky or healpix_sky (once #4848 is merged).
@pannarale, @titodalcanton brought up the idea of appending the sky type and ra and dec from the workflow to the injections. I think that probably one of the easiest ways would be to create the files needed to do the injections at a workflow levels like in here. Then use them to run the injection workflow.
Even though the skygrid functionalities have been implemented inside pycbc_multi_inspiral, at the moment we can not pass skygrids as input when generating PyGRB workflows.
Unlike our initial tests on GRB170817A, where a single point in the grid is enough. We need this implementation for GRBs that are poorly resolved in the sky.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: