Twozone extraction with BACKCORR=OMIT #236
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
CalCOS does not work when using the TWOZONE extraction method and BACKCORR set to OMIT (see #183 ). These changes enable this combination to be used correctly.
Testing was performed on dataset lcox08k2q. Both segment corrtags were calibrated like so:
As expected, test case 2 failed. Cases 1 and 3 yielded identical x1ds. Case 4 did not crash, and produced a reasonable x1d. The only differences between cases 1/3 and 4 stem from the lack of a background correction in case 4. Using the difference between the NET arrays in cases 4 and 1/3, let's call this NET_DIFF, this is nearly identical to the BACKGROUND array in case 1/3. The maximum difference between NET_DIFF and case 1/3 BACKGROUND is on the order of e-5, and average difference is e-7 (see attached plot).
This seems to suggest that the only difference between case 1/3 & 4 is due to the absence of background correction in case 4, as expected.