Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
I open this PR regarding the number of significant digits to use for each parameter #107.
I just started with the
obscurationthat had too many digits that I reduced to 2. For numbers that we compute like this, it should be easy to set a common precision for all surveys.The other parameter that looks weird at first glance is
effective_wavelengththat has 3 digits, which we could set to 2 digits as well ?Then I noticed that e.g.,
sky_brightnesshas 2 digits inLSSTbut 1 inHSC. So I wonder if we should keep the precision from the values given in references or if we should set a precision for each parameter and get it consistent across surveys.