Update plots #76
Update plots #76
Conversation
| raise ConfigError("Seed is outside of appropriate range: [0, 2 ** 32]") | ||
| return manual_bootstrap_seed | ||
|
|
||
| def parse_cosh_fit_min_separation(self, n: int, training_geometry): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can this not just take the lattice_length directly?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yep, good point
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can replace training_geometry.length with lattice_length in this parse function, but not the production rule directly below. I'm sure by now I should understand this behaviour but alas, I forget.
Also, since we're moving towards removing training_context (which contains the entire training runcard) in favour of things more akin to training_geometry which just extract the specific parameters we need (#62), perhaps it does make sense to leave this as is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that's really weird, I don't understand that..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
apologies, it doesn't work with either the parse or produce - the parse just worked because I was using the default value for cosh_fit_min_separation in cosh_fit_window..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's because that key is only present in the training context and so we could in theory put lattice length but we'd have to collect over the fit or write the key in the sampling runcard, idk why I didn't think about this earlier.
So definitely leave it for now and I will look into extracting parameters from the trained model in a more satisfactory way..
| @@ -111,7 +119,7 @@ def magnetic_susceptibility(magnetization, abs_magnetization_squared): | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| def magnetization_series(configs): | |||
| return configs.sum(axis=1) | |||
| return configs.sum(axis=1).numpy() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would it make more sense to just cast the configs numpy earlier instead of multiple times on the observables?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in other words, do we ever need configs to be a tensor?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah it would. I mean I think it only happens the once if you discount the unused correlator calculation, but it would probably be better to cast to numpy at the end of the sampling.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd rather just leave this niggle until we're messing around inside sample.py anyway, trying to generate configurations from each layer, if that's alright.
| @@ -5,15 +5,18 @@ | |||
| {@table_two_point_scalars@} | |||
| ## Two Point Correlator | |||
| {@plot_two_point_correlator@} | |||
| {@plot_two_point_correlator_error@} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we want to keep adding to this report, or at some point provide some more examples of individual actions or smaller reports?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I have opened an issue which is almost the same as addressing this #78
Did not: