Hi all,
I came up with an idea to bring a particle approach to model Ray and AbsorptionSpectrum. But before I move on to implement it in yt, I'd like to let you know what it is and get feedbacks about it.
The situation is that I have an SPH simulation, and I want to model the Ray (in order to get the AbsorptionSpectrum) as accurately as possible. Currently when we create a Ray object, it's always created from the deposited grid. Although it is a good approximation to the true particle representation, it is still not the most accurate way. I'd like to be able to do it in the particle way (like in SPLASH). In the long term, I know that Matt and Meagan is working on a new system for particle dataset. The work I'm going to propose could be thought as lying on top of that, in that the method could be made faster utilizing Matt and Meagon's work, but the main infrastructure would stay the same.
To introduce what I plan to do, let's have a look at the first figure here
http://yt-project.org/docs/dev/analyzing/analysis_modules/light_ray_generato....
The core concept of a Ray object is the path length, dl
.
Basically,
if we combine the normal fields with the dl
field, we get a Ray object.
Now imagine instead of a ray intersecting a lot of grid cells, we have a
ray intersecting a lot of SPH particles. How do we define dl
then?
We
could define it as the integral of the SPH kernel along the intersection!
And that's the whole trick. From this we could define a particle Ray that
just looks the 'same' as the original grid Ray. Then any analysis built on
top of the Ray object, AbsorptionSpectrum for example, don't need to change
a lot. They will work in different ways simply when provided with different
different kinds of Ray object.
The main difficulty in the implementation is the construction of the
particle dl
field. Currently I'm doing it brutal-forcedly by computing
dl
for all the particles and mask out those with zero values. Matt and
Meagan's work will accelerate this by providing the neighboring
information, so I could do the computation on a small set of particles
then. The brutal-force method is not unbearably slow though. And the
computation acceleration could be saved for future work.
I have an external implementation of the particle approach, and have used it in my current research. I have compared results using the particle method and those from Trident and they agree statistically as we expected (thanks Cameron for the help). Now that it looks mature, I'd like to implement it in yt.
If anyone has any comments, opinions and suggestions, I'd like to hear them.
Thanks for reading,
Bili
Hi Bili,
I'll let others respond in detail, but I wanted to say that a contribution along these lines would be very welcome. This is broadly along the route we'd like to take with SPH simulations for yt 3.4: relying less on the particle octree for as many analysis operations as possible
Nathan
On Saturday, September 10, 2016, Bili Dong - Gmail qobilidop@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I came up with an idea to bring a particle approach to model Ray and AbsorptionSpectrum. But before I move on to implement it in yt, I'd like to let you know what it is and get feedbacks about it.
The situation is that I have an SPH simulation, and I want to model the Ray (in order to get the AbsorptionSpectrum) as accurately as possible. Currently when we create a Ray object, it's always created from the deposited grid. Although it is a good approximation to the true particle representation, it is still not the most accurate way. I'd like to be able to do it in the particle way (like in SPLASH). In the long term, I know that Matt and Meagan is working on a new system for particle dataset. The work I'm going to propose could be thought as lying on top of that, in that the method could be made faster utilizing Matt and Meagon's work, but the main infrastructure would stay the same.
To introduce what I plan to do, let's have a look at the first figure here
http://yt-project.org/docs/dev/analyzing/analysis_modules/light_ray_generato....
The core concept of a Ray object is the path length, dl
.
Basically,
if we combine the normal fields with the dl
field, we get a Ray object.
Now imagine instead of a ray intersecting a lot of grid cells, we have a
ray intersecting a lot of SPH particles. How do we define dl
then?
We
could define it as the integral of the SPH kernel along the intersection!
And that's the whole trick. From this we could define a particle Ray that
just looks the 'same' as the original grid Ray. Then any analysis built on
top of the Ray object, AbsorptionSpectrum for example, don't need to change
a lot. They will work in different ways simply when provided with different
different kinds of Ray object.
The main difficulty in the implementation is the construction of the
particle dl
field. Currently I'm doing it brutal-forcedly by computing
dl
for all the particles and mask out those with zero values. Matt and
Meagan's work will accelerate this by providing the neighboring
information, so I could do the computation on a small set of particles
then. The brutal-force method is not unbearably slow though. And the
computation acceleration could be saved for future work.
I have an external implementation of the particle approach, and have used it in my current research. I have compared results using the particle method and those from Trident and they agree statistically as we expected (thanks Cameron for the help). Now that it looks mature, I'd like to implement it in yt.
If anyone has any comments, opinions and suggestions, I'd like to hear them.
Thanks for reading,
Bili
Hi Bili,
This looks cool; as I mentioend in Slack (and which you responded to! ) this shares some characteristics of the demeshening:
http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/2016-May/006453.ht...
and Ting-Wai's PR:
https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/yt/pull-requests/2127/initial-addition-of-...
In Slack you mentioned that your proposal is a different way from demeshening that minimally changes the API, and I agree, it would -- the only reason I can think of for having an API change (i.e., sampling) is if the ordering is necessary; in that case, we would (I think?) still need sampling points. But in the case of doing column density, you're totally right, and I'm on board with this. For the SPLASH algorithm, Ting-Wai has a merge conflict to fix, and then I think this can go in -- it only works on-axis right now, but should be trivial to modify to be off-axis in a subsequent PR.
Anyway, for everyone else, we were planning a sprint for local folks at NCSA on Sept 19 to work on Demeshening, and it looks like Bili's going to come out for that. If anyone would like to participate online, let me know off-list and we'll set something up.
-Matt
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bili,
I'll let others respond in detail, but I wanted to say that a contribution along these lines would be very welcome. This is broadly along the route we'd like to take with SPH simulations for yt 3.4: relying less on the particle octree for as many analysis operations as possible
Nathan
On Saturday, September 10, 2016, Bili Dong - Gmail qobilidop@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I came up with an idea to bring a particle approach to model Ray and AbsorptionSpectrum. But before I move on to implement it in yt, I'd like to let you know what it is and get feedbacks about it.
The situation is that I have an SPH simulation, and I want to model the Ray (in order to get the AbsorptionSpectrum) as accurately as possible. Currently when we create a Ray object, it's always created from the deposited grid. Although it is a good approximation to the true particle representation, it is still not the most accurate way. I'd like to be able to do it in the particle way (like in SPLASH). In the long term, I know that Matt and Meagan is working on a new system for particle dataset. The work I'm going to propose could be thought as lying on top of that, in that the method could be made faster utilizing Matt and Meagon's work, but the main infrastructure would stay the same.
To introduce what I plan to do, let's have a look at the first figure
here
http://yt-project.org/docs/dev/analyzing/analysis_modules/light_ray_generato....
The core concept of a Ray object is the path length, dl
.
Basically, if we combine the normal fields with the dl
field, we get a
Ray object. Now imagine instead of a ray intersecting a lot of grid cells,
we have a ray intersecting a lot of SPH particles. How do we define
dl
then? We could define it as the integral of the SPH kernel
along
the intersection! And that's the whole trick. From this we could
define a particle Ray that just looks the 'same' as the original grid Ray.
Then any analysis built on top of the Ray object, AbsorptionSpectrum for
example, don't need to change a lot. They will work in different ways
simply when provided with different different kinds of Ray object.
The main difficulty in the implementation is the construction of the
particle dl
field. Currently I'm doing it brutal-forcedly by computing
dl
for all the particles and mask out those with zero values. Matt and
Meagan's work will accelerate this by providing the neighboring
information, so I could do the computation on a small set of particles
then. The brutal-force method is not unbearably slow though. And the
computation acceleration could be saved for future work.
I have an external implementation of the particle approach, and have used it in my current research. I have compared results using the particle method and those from Trident and they agree statistically as we expected (thanks Cameron for the help). Now that it looks mature, I'd like to implement it in yt.
If anyone has any comments, opinions and suggestions, I'd like to hear them.
Thanks for reading,
Bili
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
Great work! I am very excited about this development, as I've seen some of the results that Bili has created so far with this method. I'm fully behind this idea!
Cameron
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Bili Dong - Gmail qobilidop@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I came up with an idea to bring a particle approach to model Ray and AbsorptionSpectrum. But before I move on to implement it in yt, I'd like to let you know what it is and get feedbacks about it.
The situation is that I have an SPH simulation, and I want to model the Ray (in order to get the AbsorptionSpectrum) as accurately as possible. Currently when we create a Ray object, it's always created from the deposited grid. Although it is a good approximation to the true particle representation, it is still not the most accurate way. I'd like to be able to do it in the particle way (like in SPLASH). In the long term, I know that Matt and Meagan is working on a new system for particle dataset. The work I'm going to propose could be thought as lying on top of that, in that the method could be made faster utilizing Matt and Meagon's work, but the main infrastructure would stay the same.
To introduce what I plan to do, let's have a look at the first figure here
http://yt-project.org/docs/dev/analyzing/analysis_modules/light_ray_generato....
The core concept of a Ray object is the path length, dl
.
Basically,
if we combine the normal fields with the dl
field, we get a Ray object.
Now imagine instead of a ray intersecting a lot of grid cells, we have a
ray intersecting a lot of SPH particles. How do we define dl
then?
We
could define it as the integral of the SPH kernel along the intersection!
And that's the whole trick. From this we could define a particle Ray that
just looks the 'same' as the original grid Ray. Then any analysis built on
top of the Ray object, AbsorptionSpectrum for example, don't need to change
a lot. They will work in different ways simply when provided with different
different kinds of Ray object.
The main difficulty in the implementation is the construction of the
particle dl
field. Currently I'm doing it brutal-forcedly by computing
dl
for all the particles and mask out those with zero values. Matt and
Meagan's work will accelerate this by providing the neighboring
information, so I could do the computation on a small set of particles
then. The brutal-force method is not unbearably slow though. And the
computation acceleration could be saved for future work.
I have an external implementation of the particle approach, and have used it in my current research. I have compared results using the particle method and those from Trident and they agree statistically as we expected (thanks Cameron for the help). Now that it looks mature, I'd like to implement it in yt.
If anyone has any comments, opinions and suggestions, I'd like to hear them.
Thanks for reading,
Bili
yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
-- Cameron Hummels NSF Postdoctoral Fellow Department of Astronomy California Institute of Technology http://chummels.org