Compute width again after saturation correction #542
Conversation
|
Thanks Tianyu for the PR. It looks fine once the AxFoundation/strax#465 is merged |
| @@ -316,6 +319,7 @@ def peak_saturation_correction(records, peaks, to_pe, | |||
| peaks[peak_i]['dt'] = dt | |||
|
|
|||
| strax.sum_waveform(peaks, records, to_pe, peak_list) | |||
| return peak_list | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe makes sense to just do strax.compute_widths(peaklets, select_peaks_indicies=peak_list) here together with the sum_wf, also alleviates the need to return this variable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@zhut19 , did you see my suggestion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, sorry, I missed this. I couldn't do this because that strax.compute_width is not a numba function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You could use a numba.typed.List, but then you should check the impact on the performance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@zhut19 ah okay, yeah I see, then it's fine as far as I am concerned unless you feel like checking out Daniels suggestion
| @@ -316,6 +319,7 @@ def peak_saturation_correction(records, peaks, to_pe, | |||
| peaks[peak_i]['dt'] = dt | |||
|
|
|||
| strax.sum_waveform(peaks, records, to_pe, peak_list) | |||
| return peak_list | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@zhut19 ah okay, yeah I see, then it's fine as far as I am concerned unless you feel like checking out Daniels suggestion
|
@jorana Let's leave it like this now. |
What does the code in this PR do / what does it improve?
The peak width is now being re-computed after the saturation correction. Those peaks previously computed with smaller widths.
This will need AxFoundation/strax#465 merged first.