Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

formatting PBjam output to different stellar model pipelines #215

Open
nielsenmb opened this issue Feb 7, 2020 · 6 comments
Open

formatting PBjam output to different stellar model pipelines #215

nielsenmb opened this issue Feb 7, 2020 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@nielsenmb
Copy link
Collaborator

It would be nice to have a small pbjam.output module which handles the formatting of the outputs so they are easy to use in different modeling pipelines.

The module can contain a method or each type of output, e.g., pbjam.output.to_mesa() which would format things to make it easier to copy mode frequencies etc. into a mesa input file.

This will hopefully make it easier for modelers to use PBjam.

We can of course just make a pbjam.output.standard() that is the default setting.

@nielsenmb nielsenmb added enhancement New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers labels Feb 7, 2020
@nielsenmb nielsenmb changed the title formatting output to different stellar model pipelines formatting PBjam output to different stellar model pipelines Feb 7, 2020
@warrickball
Copy link
Contributor

Here's an example of what the relevant lines for MESA's astero model-fitting module look like.

      nu_max = 1010 ! in uHz
      nu_max_sigma = 10

      delta_nu = 56.28 ! in uHz
      delta_nu_sigma = 1.0

      ! observed l=0 modes to match to model
         nl0 = 5
         l0_obs(1) = 799.70d0
         l0_obs(2) = 855.30d0
         l0_obs(3) = 909.92d0
         l0_obs(4) = 965.16d0
         l0_obs(5) = 1021.81d0
         l0_obs_sigma(1) = 0.27d0
         l0_obs_sigma(2) = 0.73d0
         l0_obs_sigma(3) = 0.26d0
         l0_obs_sigma(4) = 0.36d0
         l0_obs_sigma(5) = 0.28d0
   
      ! observed l=1 modes to match to model
         nl1 = 4
         l1_obs(1) = 748.60d0
         l1_obs(2) = 777.91d0
         l1_obs(3) = 828.21d0
         l1_obs(4) = 881.29d0
         l1_obs_sigma(1) = 0.23d0
         l1_obs_sigma(2) = 0.24d0
         l1_obs_sigma(3) = 0.42d0
         l1_obs_sigma(4) = 0.29d0
   
      ! observed l=2 modes to match to model
         nl2 = 2
         l2_obs(1) = 794.55d0
         l2_obs(2) = 905.31d0
         l2_obs_sigma(1) = 0.52d0
         l2_obs_sigma(2) = 0.35d0
   
      ! observed l=3 modes for matching to model
         nl3 = 0
         l3_obs(:) = 0
         l3_obs_sigma(:) = 0

If someone sets up an example of what the output functions should look like, I can probably add this myself.

@grd349
Copy link
Owner

grd349 commented Feb 7, 2020

This sounds like a nice feature - do lots of people use astero?

While this is a great idea we should keep out focus on things like robust estimates of numax/dnu and treatment of the l=1. Although I suspect @warrickball could probably do this while sleeping it should probably be a v2.0 ambition. :)

@warrickball
Copy link
Contributor

This sounds like a nice feature - do lots of people use astero?

Basically, no. AIMS and AMP spring to mind as formats that others might use. I expect there's one format per stellar modeller/modelling pipeline so it's probably easier to just let the user provide a format function that we (you?) might ingest later.

While this is a great idea we should keep out focus on things like robust estimates of numax/dnu and treatment of the l=1. Although I suspect @warrickball could probably do this while sleeping it should probably be a v2.0 ambition. :)

I fully agree that this should be a low priority. It's easy to work with the peakbag_summary CSV as it is so, while convenient, I doubt this feature would add much value.

@nielsenmb
Copy link
Collaborator Author

nielsenmb commented Feb 10, 2020 via email

@nielsenmb
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This is a problem description for the PBjam Hackday:

Problem: Eliminating barriers for usage is makes people more likely to use code. Some users may never have tried use seismic constraints in their modeling efforts, and it would simplify the process greatly if PBjam automatically outputs the mode frequencies in a way that modeling codes can easily digest.

Possible Solution: Write a small class that takes inputs from PBjam and given some output options creates a file that is formatted to conform with, e.g., MESA or BASTA input files. Start with open source modeling codes, and if you have knowledge of commonly used but private codes, feel free to add output formats for these too.

1 similar comment
@nielsenmb
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This is a problem description for the PBjam Hackday:

Problem: Eliminating barriers for usage is makes people more likely to use code. Some users may never have tried use seismic constraints in their modeling efforts, and it would simplify the process greatly if PBjam automatically outputs the mode frequencies in a way that modeling codes can easily digest.

Possible Solution: Write a small class that takes inputs from PBjam and given some output options creates a file that is formatted to conform with, e.g., MESA or BASTA input files. Start with open source modeling codes, and if you have knowledge of commonly used but private codes, feel free to add output formats for these too.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants