Bug #1876

GCTAPsf2D::containment_radius calculation

Added by Ziegler Alexander over 7 years ago. Updated about 7 years ago.

Status:ClosedStart date:11/04/2016
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assigned To:Knödlseder Jürgen% Done:

100%

Category:-
Target version:1.3.0
Duration:

Description

I just stumbled over the member function GCTAPsf2D::containment_radius() and recognized two strange things:

1.) The function GCTAPsf2D::containment_radius is described to be calculated with a global normalization, see doxygen docu code lines 559-562 in GCTAPsf2D.cpp (e.g. here: http://cta.irap.omp.eu/gammalib/doxygen/GCTAPsf2D_8cpp-source.html#l00570).
This would follow the standard treatment like in the rest of the code.
However, in the implementation of this function it seems that it is evaluated in a different way, as m_norm being the normalization of only the first gaussian, see lines 607-610.
Is this wrong implemented or a wrong understanding of me (it would probably also affect the calculation of the derivative)?
From having a quick look the implementation seems to contradict the doxygen docu of the function.

2.) I recalculated quickly, and potentially found a missing '1-'? As its done at the moment, following the doxygen docu, for a -> infinity, the fraction goes to zero? But should’t it go to 1?
Think more correct would be fraction = 1-fraction*, with fraction* the fraction which is used at the moment.

Maybe I am wrong (I am not too familiar with the PSF class), but from a first quick look, the described issues seem strange to me.


Recurrence

No recurrence.

History

#1 Updated by Knödlseder Jürgen over 7 years ago

Thanks for catching that. I think that neither the documentation not the implementation is correct :(

I think the correct code should be

        // Calculate f(a)
        double fa(0.0);
        fa += 1.0 - std::exp(m_width1 * a2);
        fa += m_norm2 * (1.0 - std::exp(m_width2 * a2));
        fa += m_norm3 * (1.0 - std::exp(m_width3 * a2));
        fa *= m_norm;
        fa -= fraction;

        // Calculate f'(a)
        double fp(0.0);
        fp += std::exp(m_width1 * a2);
        fp += m_norm2 * std::exp(m_width2 * a2);
        fp += m_norm3 * std::exp(m_width3 * a2);
        fp *= -2.0 * a * m_norm;
Could you please double check if you would agree with that?

#2 Updated by Knödlseder Jürgen over 7 years ago

  • Target version set to 1.2.0
  • % Done changed from 0 to 80

I implemented the change in the branch 1876-correct-containment-radius. Can you check if everything is okay now?

#3 Updated by Knödlseder Jürgen over 7 years ago

  • Status changed from New to In Progress

For the record: the change has not yet been integrated

#4 Updated by Knödlseder Jürgen about 7 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Feedback
  • % Done changed from 80 to 100

Change has been merged in the code. Still needs some testing!!!

#5 Updated by Knödlseder Jürgen about 7 years ago

  • Target version changed from 1.2.0 to 1.3.0

#6 Updated by Knödlseder Jürgen about 7 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Closed

Checked and closed

Also available in: Atom PDF