Fix mutual coupling conjugation #268
Conversation
Also fix the test to account for the updated electric field propagator convention.
Re-ran the tutorial notebook with the updated conjugation convention, and updated one figure to explicitly show which "blob" corresponds to which visibility, as presented at the 2023 HERA Busy Week.
|
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good, thanks @r-pascua. Figures in the notebook look great!
|
This took a long time to come around to, but I've finally made a decisive comparison of the coupling simulations against what we see in the data. The amplitude of the coupling is greater in the data than what is predicted by the simulation, but it looks like the shapes in fringe-rate vs delay space agree. I figured I would post the results here for reference.
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #268 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 92.92% 92.92%
=======================================
Files 24 24
Lines 3223 3224 +1
Branches 705 705
=======================================
+ Hits 2995 2996 +1
Misses 126 126
Partials 102 102
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
This PR fixes the conjugation error in the electric field propagator in the mutual coupling simulator. This should now ensure that the fringe-rate vs delay waterfalls for simulated coupling have the same shape as in the data.