New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix flux point computation for non-power-law models #1220

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 26, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@adonath
Member

adonath commented Nov 24, 2017

This PR fixes the issue raised in #1219. The code computed the asymmetric errors for the amplitude of the model, assuming that the parameter value is equal to value when the model is evaluated at the reference energy. This is not the case for an ExponentialCutoffPowerLaw. The code was adapted to handle this correctly.

@facero This is what the fixed RXJ 1713 flux points look like:
rxj_1713_flux_points_fixed

@adonath adonath added the bug label Nov 24, 2017

@cdeil

cdeil approved these changes Nov 26, 2017

@cdeil cdeil added this to the 0.7 milestone Nov 26, 2017

@cdeil cdeil changed the title from Fix #1219 and add regression test to Fix flux point computation for non-power-law models Nov 26, 2017

@cdeil cdeil merged commit 5f5465f into gammapy:master Nov 26, 2017

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@cdeil

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cdeil

cdeil Nov 26, 2017

Member

@adonath - Thanks!

Member

cdeil commented Nov 26, 2017

@adonath - Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment