On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Manfred Hanke wrote: > Btw, with the set_par_fun function, one can realize even more > complicated parameter dependencies. Yes, I am very proud of these: 43 bbodyrad(1).norm 0 1 7.815466 5 200 #=> 10.34615*(0.2023128/bbodyrad(1).kT)^4*4.68935/bband(0.5/ bbodyrad(1).kT,10/bbodyrad(1).kT)*(constant(1).factor/0.89702) 44 bbodyrad(1).kT 0 0 0.2335175 0.05 0.35 keV 45 powerlaw(1).norm 0 1 8.033949e-06 0 0.001 #=> constant(2).factor*plratio(powerlaw(1).PhoIndex,0.5,10)/ 0.338843*2.11778*1.497945e-5 46 powerlaw(1).PhoIndex 0 0 1.591079 -1.5 4 47 constant(1).factor 0 0 1.31748 0.5 3 48 constant(2).factor 0 0 0.3800049 0 3 Where bband is a S-lang function I wrote to calculate a normalized integral of the blackbody flux in a given keV band, and plratio is a S- lang function for a normalized integral of a powerlaw flux in a given keV band. The constants 1 & 2 then become fit parameters for the 0.5-10 keV blackbody flux and 0.5-10 keV powerlaw flux, referenced to the previously determined best fit value. Thus for two separate observations I could do error contours for the fluxes in these components referenced to the best fit of a single observation, to convince a referee that the fluxes in these components did indeed statistically differ between the two observations. Now, if some clever grad student could think of a way of simply using a finite set of chi^2 measurements to create an estimate of the fit covariance matrix, we could also program something up akin to XSPEC's Monte Carlo sampling of flux values. (I've done it using just the single parameter confidence values, but I don't think that works particularly well for most situations.) -Mike ---- You received this message because you are subscribed to the isis-users list. To unsubscribe, send a message to isis-users-request_at_email.domain.hiddenwith the first line of the message as: unsubscribeReceived on Mon Jul 27 2009 - 11:57:49 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jul 27 2009 - 12:08:43 EDT