You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Looking at the docstring, it seems that the threshold (250) and filter (3) are inverted for the version deployed on our jupyterserver.
We can update the notebook in a PR, but just wanted to check first.
Also, the histograms look generally the same, but we found 794 events not 702 after just fixing the argument order above. The histograms look largely the same, but the 2x2 scatter plots look like the correlation of fits for xfrac and yfrac are improved. Perhaps this is expected as improvements were made to code. Can you confirm the algorithm should be "better" or do we need to adjust the argument values ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@stuwilkins in the example notebook of this repo, we find we get zero photons using pycentroids version
'0.2.0rc2'
https://github.com/NSLS-II/centroids/blame/f9a8b54143aab7de6ec0e6dd5f992c93ad33f8ec/examples/Single_Photon_Test.ipynb#L212
Looking at the docstring, it seems that the threshold (
250
) and filter (3
) are inverted for the version deployed on our jupyterserver.We can update the notebook in a PR, but just wanted to check first.
Also, the histograms look generally the same, but we found
794
events not702
after just fixing the argument order above. The histograms look largely the same, but the 2x2 scatter plots look like the correlation of fits for xfrac and yfrac are improved. Perhaps this is expected as improvements were made to code. Can you confirm the algorithm should be "better" or do we need to adjust the argument values ?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: