Hi Saku - I think you are correct. And assuming the appropriateness of the statistic and model, ISIS is doing the right thing. This more of a statistics question. As I understand this thread, it intentionally constructed a simulation with no feature, then asks the question, "how big a feature could be there at this noise level without me knowing it?" So I believe I've misinterpreted the conf result before (and need to check an elementary statistics text!). For a priori known flux of 0.0, we fit 1.5e-7, but it could be 2.6e-5 or 0, to 90% confidence (there is probably a problem w/ the lower limit, since flux is constrained to be >0). So I don't see how the thread as written answers the original question posed. If your line flux is greater than 2.6e-5, then you can say there is a 10% or smaller probability that it is due to noise; but I don't think you know the detection significance. --Dave In isis-users, you wrote: > >The confidence limits should be on the value determined by the fit. > >In this thread after running fit_counts if you list the parameters: > >isis> list_par; >phabs(1)*(powerlaw(1)+gauss(1)) > idx param tie-to freeze value min max > 1 phabs(1).nH 0 1 0.32 0 100000 >10^22 > 2 powerlaw(1).norm 0 1 0.047 0 1e+10 > 3 powerlaw(1).PhoIndex 0 1 1.85 -2 9 > 4 gauss(1).area 0 0 1.503894e-07 0 1 >photons/s/cm^2 > 5 gauss(1).center 0 1 12.13 0 0 A > 6 gauss(1).sigma 0 1 0.08 0 1 A > > >so the value of the parameter is 1.5e-7 and the confidence limits are >0 and 2.6e-5. Doesn't that mean that the value is consistent with 0? >---- ---- 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 Thu Mar 10 2005 - 09:50:14 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Mar 15 2007 - 08:45:51 EDT