MAINT: provenance for resolution smearing validation#84
Open
andyfaff wants to merge 2 commits intoreflectivity:masterfrom
Open
MAINT: provenance for resolution smearing validation#84andyfaff wants to merge 2 commits intoreflectivity:masterfrom
andyfaff wants to merge 2 commits intoreflectivity:masterfrom
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
@bmaranville this is a provenance notebook for generating the resolution smeared reflectivity test datasets.
I found a possible issue with the test5 problem. That problem represents a 10-repeat Nickel Titanium multilayer, so it has Bragg peaks in the scattering.
The original test data was generated with integration limits (-3.5sigma, 3.5sigma), with quad_order=10001. If I increase the integration limits in the notebook to (-7sigma, 7sigma) the existing problem 5 data doesn't agree with the provenance notebook anymore. There's a point at high Q thats ~8 % different, and a few other points are less comparable.
This comes about because the intense Bragg peaks can influence a data point that's quite a way away, if the integration limits are large. Ultimately I don't think this has any practical consequence. In my experience experimentally measured Bragg peak data don't match up with fitted multilayer repeat models to a high degree of accuracy.
Anyway, this provenance notebook could be used as a basis for generating more validation problems for resolution smearing.