Skip to content

feat: new observe_coeval function#74

Open
steven-murray wants to merge 1 commit intobetter_lc_noisefrom
coeval-obs
Open

feat: new observe_coeval function#74
steven-murray wants to merge 1 commit intobetter_lc_noisefrom
coeval-obs

Conversation

@steven-murray
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Add a function to easily "observe" a coeval box. This has many similarities to observe_lightcone (and perhaps we could merge some of the code) but also some simplifications (especially due to having only one redshift).

I opted to go the "simpler" route of only having to supply the Observation and the coeval dimensions, rather than the full sigma_uv like we do for observe_lightcone. I could be argued out of this, or argued into applying the same to the observe_lightcone function.

@steven-murray steven-murray self-assigned this Apr 2, 2026
@steven-murray steven-murray added type: feature: physical New feature that adds new analysis/physical model priority: medium Medium priority labels Apr 2, 2026
@nikos-triantafyllou
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

nikos-triantafyllou commented Apr 2, 2026

So this is just to save time from having to compute every sigma at every slice?
One could argue that we would never want this, except if we want to run some test.

But it could be the same as if we provide a coeval, and an array filled with the same redshifts for the observe_lightcone

@steven-murray
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@nikos-triantafyllou yes, it should be essentially the same as running observe_lightcone and passing in an array of the same redshifts except that the wedge filter is also different -- we don't have to do any chunking or rolling or anything, because we have a periodic box.

So, in the end it is faster and more convenient.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@nikos-triantafyllou nikos-triantafyllou left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, I am still a bit concerned if it complicates things, but we can remove it later based on the final workflow we decide on.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

priority: medium Medium priority type: feature: physical New feature that adds new analysis/physical model

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants