You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The main database doesn't (to my knowledge?) incorporate uncertainties in its atomic calculations or data, which is a problem that we often like to overlook. There have been a few papers and ISSI teams to address this to varying extents (e.g. Yu et al 2018; Del Zanna et al 2019; Yu et al 2024; ISSI team).
I would like to suggest that fiasco could incorporate uncertainties, assuming of course that the data source lists the uncertainties. There are packages like lmfit/uncertainties that can be used to propagate (linear) errors through any calculations done on that atomic data, which would be particularly helpful for a quantity like line intensity that depends on a number of atomic parameters.
Is there any interest in this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The main database doesn't (to my knowledge?) incorporate uncertainties in its atomic calculations or data, which is a problem that we often like to overlook. There have been a few papers and ISSI teams to address this to varying extents (e.g. Yu et al 2018; Del Zanna et al 2019; Yu et al 2024; ISSI team).
I would like to suggest that fiasco could incorporate uncertainties, assuming of course that the data source lists the uncertainties. There are packages like lmfit/uncertainties that can be used to propagate (linear) errors through any calculations done on that atomic data, which would be particularly helpful for a quantity like line intensity that depends on a number of atomic parameters.
Is there any interest in this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: