georgievgeorgi
commented
1 year ago Please provide transformation to "standard" parameters -- those available from lm-fit
Open lellid opened 1 year ago
georgievgeorgi
commented
1 year ago Please provide transformation to "standard" parameters -- those available from lm-fit
kerberizer
commented
5 months ago @vedina Are we going to drop this one?
vedina
commented
5 months ago lets' this stay, as it is a valid PR per se
github-actions[bot]
commented
4 months ago 
Click to see where and how coverage changed
File Statements Missing Coverage Coverage
(new stmts)Lines missing
src/ramanchada2/fitting_functions
models.py
models_lmfit_like.py
1-70
pearson4_hpw.py
1-159
pearsonivamplitudeparametrizationhpw.py
62, 205, 294, 541, 545
voigt_nu.py
1-143
voigtareaparametrizationnu.py
87, 222, 226-228, 288-290, 301, 303, 310-312, 316-318, 358, 365-367, 422-423, 581
src/ramanchada2/spectrum/peaks
find_peaks_ByIncrementalPeakAddition.py
12-15, 17-20, 22, 27, 29, 37-43, 124, 144, 179-186, 190
tests/fitting_functions
test_pearsonivamplitudeparametrizationhpw.py
test_voigtareaparametrizationnu.py
tests/spectrum/peaks
test_PeakFittingByIncrementalPeakAddition.py
Project Total
This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action
@lellid, I simplified your implementations in a lmfit-like way. The lmfit-like implementation produce compatible results with your implementations. These results are not compatible with the once from lmfit library. Could you please have a look and fix the problems? There is a notebook that illustrates the problem. For pearson4 it seems like
wandsigmaparameters are different but in some places their usage is mixed. Please make sure you call the variables with their names.wmight mean sigma, FWHM, HWHF and makes the code unclear. I suspect this as possible cause for the discrepancies in the results.