Hello Hee Il,
from your email it seems that you are seeing differences between different ET releases but with the same par file.
Yet your plot seems to not show any pair of curves that only differ by the release code used.
If you are comparing to the runs by the Parma group (or any simulation) then you must ensure that you are comparing "apples with apples" ie you would have to run their parfiles with the current ET release (to check for a change) and also with their code (to check if the issue is compiler / cluster changes).
They provide their code and parfiles in:
https://einstein.pr.infn.it/svn/numrel/pub/
See "Background material" on
https://einstein.pr.infn.it/gravity/Research/BNS2016.html
which is listed on the "Additional Resources" page of:
https://docs.einsteintoolkit.org/et-docs/Additional_resources
Yours, Roland
Hi
I'm reporting on recon_method dependency issue at least found in Turing and Lorentz. I've been studying BNS evolution by taking some of the Parma group models as references (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.064047). But there were significant differences in merger time, t_merger. At the moment, I will put aside direct comparison between the GRHydro of Parma and recents ones.
What I've found is that WENO of Turing/Lorentz produces much shorter inspiraling time (See the attached figure). But WENO-Z/PPM/MP5, they all produce similar inspiraling time. Of course, depending on resolutions, they produce different merging behaviour but as shown in the figure, higher-res PPM matches with lower-res WENO-Z nicely, which is consistent with our expectations. I've got the identical results for both Turing and Lorentz versions.
I've missed recent GRHydro developments for a long time and I have no guesses for the discrepancy. I hope GRHydro developers examine this issue for the consistency of the recon_method. Thanks for your help in advance.
Hee Il