1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
|
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.
|
