Data collected with revision 165dd41, four parallel instances, 30-45 minutes each. Analyzed with analyze.py split cell eject/split direction deviations: mean = -0.04179961392956227, stddev=0.4556678701725402, ndata=159 75% of the splits had a deviation smaller than 0.02 rad = 1.31 deg ejected mass eject/split direction deviations: mean = -0.0016847086620534303, stddev=0.872858965604425, ndata=352 75% of the splits had a deviation smaller than 0.46 rad = 26.47 deg split cell eject/split distances: mean = 388.2279635920042, stddev=222.71465106976927, ndata=314 75% of the values lie in the interval 381.25 plusminus 225.53 ejected mass eject/split distances: mean = 442.90229450857305, stddev=189.2221703217239, ndata=252 75% of the values lie in the interval 535.71 plusminus 8.61 distances are measured between "spawn point of cell" and "end point of movement". Spawnpoint is usually near "parentcell.midpoint + parentcell.size". Now if we measure distances between "midpoint of parent cell" and "end point of movement" by applying the following patch: diff --git a/stats.py b/stats.py index bb88c3e..1c0a196 100644 --- a/stats.py +++ b/stats.py @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ class Stats: # print(str(n) + "\t" + str(x)) def analyze_distances(self, celltype): - ds = [v[0] for v in self.data.eject_distlogs[celltype]] + ds = [v[1] for v in self.data.eject_distlogs[celltype]] try: mean, stddev = fit_gaussian(ds) we get this: split cell eject/split distances: mean = 560.4528176561469, stddev=276.25260008531626, ndata=314 75% of the values lie in the interval 556.62 plusminus 322.76 ejected mass eject/split distances: mean = 767.2502438544719, stddev=168.80422060053823, ndata=252 75% of the values lie in the interval 732.30 plusminus 86.28 As one can see, the "plusminus" values are much larger than above. So measuring between "spawnpoint" and "endpoint" is more appropriate.