Skip to content
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

Use uncalibrated energy as waveform max instead of actual max for timepoints #43

Open
hervasa2 opened this issue Nov 27, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@hervasa2
Copy link

We should take care to get all PSD parameters from normalized waveforms. Here the normalization factor (E) should be the same across the processing chain (A/E, QDrift/E, ...) and equal to a filtered maximum of the waveform in ADC.
Therefore in:

t10 = get_threshold(wvfs, wvf_max .* 0.1; mintot=config.kwargs_pars.tx_mintot)
t50 = get_threshold(wvfs, wvf_max .* 0.5; mintot=config.kwargs_pars.tx_mintot)
t80 = get_threshold(wvfs, wvf_max .* 0.8; mintot=config.kwargs_pars.tx_mintot)
t90 = get_threshold(wvfs, wvf_max .* 0.9; mintot=config.kwargs_pars.tx_mintot)
t99 = get_threshold(wvfs, wvf_max .* 0.99; mintot=config.kwargs_pars.tx_mintot)

wvf_max should be replaced by e_cusp or e_trap

@theHenks theHenks self-assigned this Dec 8, 2024
@theHenks theHenks added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 8, 2024
@theHenks
Copy link
Collaborator

theHenks commented Dec 8, 2024

Agreed, that should be an easy fix. I will include a new metadata parameter which controls which energy estimator will be used for that.
I don't think it makes a huge difference right now but you are right.
For the current processing, I would go with e_cusp then since this is at the moment our default energy estimator.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants