-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Callbacks: fitting #19
Comments
We might need ability to dynamically guess initial fit parameters based on data collected so far. See existing scans library for how it's done there. Although this isn't done by default in bluesky, it should generally be a reasonably simple addition in a thin subclass/wrapper of |
For info, asked the scientists about point raised in code review (whether initial guess should be shown or not), and all present [RD/CK/JL] agreed it should be shown on the plot |
As a user, I would like to be able to apply fits to scans.
This depends on #8 , which should be merged before this is started.
This is relatively standard bluesky functionality that needs documenting/exposing in a nice way.
This should also include plotting the fit onto the same axes that are used by
LivePlot
, i.e. you should be able to get a result that looks something like this (obviously this is already possible using standard bluesky functionality - this is mostly a documentation exercise):Acceptance criteria
ax + b
, others asmx + c
or(c1)x + c0
. In order to avoid having overlapping models on different beamlines it would be best to get the science groups to all agree with a single set of definitions. Maybe we can re-use any existing conventions from mantid?bluesky
already has support for this via thePeakStats
callbackRunEngine
by defaultplan_result
or similar mechanisms) after the scan has completedDiscussed in planning 05/09/24
37:15
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: