Code Comprehensive Review

[HajimeKawahara]

Based on the reflections from Bug #414 , we will thoroughly inspect the calculations and implementations of the code up to now.

emission spectrum comparison with PetitRadtrans, which was performed when version 1 released, but now many changes since then

• [x] emission w/ pure absorption #457 See the threads below.

physical settings

• [x] pressure layer tests/unittests/atm/layer_test.py #533
• [x] scale height #533
• [x] layer optical depth

opfac * xsmatrix * dParr[:, None] * mixing_ratio[:, None] / (mass * gravity)

opfac is equivalent to 1.e3/m_u, where m_u = scipy.constants.m_u (atomic mass in kg). 1.e3 converts to cgs unit.

mixing_ratio: volume mixing ratio (VMR) or mass mixing ratio (MMR) [N_layer] mass: mean molecular weight for VMR or molecular mass for MMR

Note: when using MMR as molecular abundance parameters, the spectrum does not depend on the mean molecular weight, and therefore scalable by g, i.e. MMR/g.

constants

• [x] constants.py

continuum

• [x] CIA #433

radiative transfer

• [ ] ArtEmisPure
• [ ] ArtTransPure
• [ ] ArtReflectPure -- compares with pure absorption (ArtAbsPure)

[ykawashima]

I performed the comparison of the spectra calculated with the pure absorption case with petitRADTRANS. ~~The scripts for these plots are included in tests/integration/comparison/twostream.~~ Exojax calculations were performed with release v1.4.2.

[HajimeKawahara]

Thanks! #457

[ykawashima]

I realized that it makes more sense to compare intensity-based calculation with petitRADTRANS, the results of which are attached below. The spectra are now much more similar. The scripts for these plots are included in tests/integration/comparison/twostream. Exojax calculations were performed with the develop branch on Jan. 13th (a5409ae61f50317b2cb9eeb55cbb23dba8d6f2e5).