Preparing for veto file handling in PyGRB #4929
Merged
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
…b_postprocessing_utils.py
|
@spxiwh, @titodalcanton I added both of you as reviewers since there will be a combination of workflow and "pure PyGRB" content in this chain of PRs. |
spxiwh
approved these changes
Nov 11, 2024
titodalcanton
approved these changes
Nov 11, 2024
| vetoes.coalesce() | ||
| for ifo in ifos: | ||
| for v in vetoes[ifo]: | ||
| v_span = v[1] - v[0] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you can just do abs(v) here, though I am not sure it is more readable :)
Comment on lines
+677
to
+682
| coinc_snr = numpy.array([]) | ||
| if 'network/coherent_snr' in trigs_or_injs.keys() and \ | ||
| 'network/null_snr' in trigs_or_injs.keys(): | ||
| coh_snr_sq = numpy.square(trigs_or_injs['network/coherent_snr'][:]) | ||
| null_snr_sq = numpy.square(trigs_or_injs['network/null_snr'][:]) | ||
| coinc_snr = numpy.sqrt(coh_snr_sq + null_snr_sq) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not necessarily a request for change as this is probably coupled with downstream code, but would it make more sense to return either None or an array of NaNs, rather than an empty array?
This was referenced Nov 11, 2024
Closed
This was referenced Nov 19, 2024
prayush
pushed a commit
to prayush/pycbc
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 21, 2024
* Missing empty line * grb_utils.py preparation to handle veto-files and segment files * pycbc_make_offline_grb_workflow update based on grb_utils.py upgrade * Updated hacky pygrb stuff in jobsetup.py * First batch of updates to handle the VDF in PyGRB and streamline pygrb_postprocessing_utils.py * Removing build_veto_filelist from pycbc_pygrb_minifollowups * Better variable naming and string search in jobsetup.py * Removing redundant variables * Corrected call to segments plots * Better argparse syntax * No f-string in logging * assert instead of if
This was referenced Nov 23, 2024
This was referenced Dec 7, 2024
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.
This is the first PR of a series that will enable PyGRB to handle an xml veto file when producing final results (plots, p-values, tables, etc.)
Standard information about the request (and the following ones that will be linked to this)
This is a: a new feature in PyGRB. As an aside, some utilities and scripts will be streamlined.
This change affects: PyGRB
This change changes: result presentation / plotting and scientific output.
This change will probably break current functionalities at the moment. If the standard automated test running
--helpon all scripts fails on PyGRB plotting scripts, I will add some workarounds to avoid this. If needed, these will likely be empty functions: the plotting scripts will be progressively renovated in PRs following this one.Motivation
PyGRB in its current version is not using data vetoes.
Contents
grb_utils.pyand the veto file is handled in parallel with the segments files throughout the functions (as noted in Combine PyGRB segments files #4887 the segments files will need to become a single json file eventually).jobsetup.py.Testing performed
The totality of the changes that will be broken down in multiple PRs was tested on GRB 170817A data by producing a full results webpage (see here).