Hi Steve,
On 9/30/2015 8:52 AM, Steven Franke wrote:
>> A surprise discovery: it seems that all of our recent tests have been
>> using the original code in .../trunk/demod64a.f90, with its exp(x)
>> symbol metrics. I tried switching back to your simple p1/psum, p2/psum
>> mnetrics computed in .../trunk/rsdtest/demod64b.f90, with much degraded
>> results. I did not try re-tuning things accordingly.
>>
>
> I assume that you mean ../trunk/demod64b.f90 (not a). Really?! Shoot.
No, I meant ../trunk/demod64a.f90. Note that extract2.f90 calls
demod64a(), not demod64b(). Unless I'm going batty from looking at this
stuff for too long ...
-- Joe
> I guess that the comparison between metrics needed to be done. Maybe I should
> do that next. The approach would be to switch metrics - run (with much
> degraded results) - and use the fort.40 results to bootstrap up to the
> “right” probabilities and see where we land. This could affect the mr2sym
> results as well.
>
> I’m still surprised - because I did my high resolution 2D histograms for both
> sets of metrics, and they looked very different. I was convinced that the 8x8
> matrix in fort.40 looked more like the high-resolution histogram for the
> simple metrics.
>
> Huh.
>
> Steve k9an
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
