Below are the resulting 3D correlation function from the run on the big box (described in previous blog post)
3D Correlation Functions on large mock data box
The first thing I notice is that they don't match as well as the functions matched on the smaller box. Following up on my concern from yesterday about the distribution of the random declinations:
The red line is the mock data and the blue line is the random data.
As you can see I am not properly simulating the declination randoms. Adam and I actually got in an argument/discussion about this on Tuesday. He was concerned that randomly populating in a ra, dec, redshift mask and then converting to x, y, z, was not the same as randomly populating in x, y, z but constraining the points to be within the mask. The above plot seems to point to this being true. My question is if this is also true with the Sloan data, or is the above an artifact of the fact that this mock data is actually in x, y, z coordinates, and I am applying a conversion/cut to try to simulate what is happening with the data. But with the Sloan data the true coordinate system is ra/dec/redshift, and so I would expect the point to be evenly distributed in that coordinate system, and slightly warped in x, y, z... but maybe this example shows I am wrong about this. Next step is to make these plots for Sloan data.
More worrying histograms:
No comments:
Post a Comment