1) Full IV/dIdV sweep analysis for CUTE PD2 data and verified that I get the same results as Eleanor (in particular resolution vs %Rn plot). One issue, independent of IO, was fitting of the dIdV in transition. Eleanor seems to have modified the default dt0 to make it work. Instead of hardcoding new dt0, I added the argument **kwargs argument to fit_tran_didv functions to allow a dt0 argument. Also I added storage of dt0 from SC/N fit, which could then be used for the fit in transition. In the future (for SNOLAB tower with a lot more TES to analyze), we should automate it by for example (optionally) adding the more robust 1-pole fit as part of fit_tran.didv or a rough dt0 estimate by "walking" on the filtered trace.
2) Processing ("_process_iv_didv.py") a couple of SLAC R51 files with TES chips to verify that the pulses and signal generator informations are properly read. No IV and dIdV analysis done
I did a couple of tests:
1) Full IV/dIdV sweep analysis for CUTE PD2 data and verified that I get the same results as Eleanor (in particular resolution vs %Rn plot). One issue, independent of IO, was fitting of the dIdV in transition. Eleanor seems to have modified the default dt0 to make it work. Instead of hardcoding new dt0, I added the argument **kwargs argument to fit_tran_didv functions to allow a dt0 argument. Also I added storage of dt0 from SC/N fit, which could then be used for the fit in transition. In the future (for SNOLAB tower with a lot more TES to analyze), we should automate it by for example (optionally) adding the more robust 1-pole fit as part of fit_tran.didv or a rough dt0 estimate by "walking" on the filtered trace.
2) Processing ("_process_iv_didv.py") a couple of SLAC R51 files with TES chips to verify that the pulses and signal generator informations are properly read. No IV and dIdV analysis done