Skip to content
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 1 commit into from Nov 26, 2017


Copy link

@adonath 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:

@adonath adonath added the bug label Nov 24, 2017
cdeil approved these changes Nov 26, 2017
@cdeil cdeil added this to the 0.7 milestone Nov 26, 2017
@cdeil cdeil changed the title Fix #1219 and add regression test 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
2 checks passed
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Copy link

@cdeil cdeil commented Nov 26, 2017

@adonath - Thanks!

@adonath adonath deleted the adonath:fix_#1219 branch Nov 20, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants