1. The Enzo Project
  2. Untitled project
  3. enzo-dev
  4. Pull requests

Pull requests

#163 Merged
Repository
enzo-dev-GB
Branch
week-of-code
Repository
enzo-dev
Branch
week-of-code

New parameter and method for depositing particles in subgrids

Author
  1. Greg Bryan
Reviewers
Description

This change introduces a new parameter to control how particles in subgrids are deposited into the mass field to generate the mass. Previously, this was hard-coded to NGP deposit (following a change made by Tom about a year ago, previous to which it was CIC deposit). We now introduce a parameter which controls this -- the new parameter is ParticleSubgridDepositMode, and three values are allowed: 0 (CIC_DEPOSIT) - This is a second-order, cloud-in-cell deposition method in which the cloud size is equal to the cell size in the target grid (particles are in source grid, deposited into target grid). This method preserves the correct center-of-mass for a single particle but smears out boundaries and can result in small artifacts for smooth particle distributions (e.g. nested cosmological simulations with low perturbations). 1 (CIC_DEPOSIT_SMALL) - This is also a CIC method, but the cloud size is taken to be the cell size in the source grid, so for subgrids, the cloud is smaller than the grid size. This is an attempt to compromise between the other two methods. 2 (NGP_DEPOSIT) - This uses a first order, nearest-grid-point method to deposit particle mass. It does not preserve center- of mass position and so for single particle results in noisy accelerations. However, it does correctly treat nested cosmology simulations with low initial perturbations.

The previous code corresponds to NGP_DEPOSIT, which does a good job of not introducing artifacts in cosmological simulations which are very close to a uniform distribution. However, this does not do well when resolving one or a small number of particles. This is seen most clearly in the GravityTest, which generates large errors in the top grid.

The alternate setting of CIC_DEPOSIT fixes the problem in GravityTest but introduces artifacts for cosmology simulations with a very uniform initial distribution (low perturbations). The new option CIC_DEPOSIT_SMALL, is a compromise, in that it uses a CIC deposit, but with a cloud size corresponding to the particle's grid cells, rather than the target's grid cells. This produces a good result for the GravityTest and also performs well for cosmological simulations with uniform distributions. Given that it performs very well, we adopt it as the default.

More specifically, here is the result of GravityTest (from the method paper) with the (previous) NGP_DEPOSIT deposition (pretty bad! This is what the current code does!): GravityTestNGP And here it is with the CIC_DEPOSIT (much better!): CIC_DEPOSIT And here it is with CIC_DEPOSIT_SMALL (almost identical to CIC_DEPOSIT): CIC_DEPOSIT_SMALL

The cosmological case is a little hard to show, but here are some examples takes from a slightly modified AMRNestedCosmology run. In particular, we decreased the power spectrum amplitude to exaggerate the size of any artifacts (all of these methods work pretty well for reasonably large perturbation amplitudes). In particular, we set:

PowerSpectrumSigma8          = 0.00009
CosmologyOmegaBaryonNow    = 0.0001

in the AMRNestedCosmology_*Grid.inits files and making some similar changes to the AMRNestedCosmology.enzo file (the enzo full parameter file is here: http://paste.yt-project.org/show/3618/). We set the baryons to a very low value to focus on the dark matter and set the power spectrum amplitude very low. Then we run it and look at the resulting potential slice through the center.

For the NGP_DEPOSIT (the current way the code is operating), the resulting potential image looks like this: NGP_DEPOSIT Potential which is not bad -- there are a few artifact, but the power spectrum is really very, very low so this is expected (in fact, I selected such a low power to make sure that I would still see some artifacts in this case).

For CIC_DEPOSIT, we get: CIC_DEPOSIT potential which is really pretty bad and the reason Tom made the change way back.

With the new CIC_DEPOSIT_SMALL, we get: CIC_DEPOSIT_SMALL potential which is as good as the NGP_DEPOSIT.

Documentation has been added to the parameter file description. This change will modify the gold standard. It is also required to get the method paper tests correct (in particular TestGravity), so it would be great if people could look at this ASAP.

UPDATE: Corrected the comment mistakes that Sam et al. pointed out. Also, put back cic_deposit_c.o in Make.config.obj (I didn't mean to remove this, although it should probably be removed since it is not used -- but that should probably be another pull request).

Comments (5)

  1. Greg Bryan author

    I forgot to add that to actually do the AMRNestedCosmology test above, requires a few tweaks to hard-coded values:

    In Grid_CosmologySimulationInitializeGrid.

    -#define DENSITY_FLOOR 0.01
    +#define DENSITY_FLOOR 0.000001
    

    and in euler.F

    -     &         dnu(i) = max(dnu(i),1.e-3_RKIND)
    +     &         dnu(i) = max(dnu(i),1.e-5_RKIND)