-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Uncertainties from Lorentz corrections? #34
Comments
This requires quantifies these errors first. We have so far entirely ignored errors on coords. Is this a separate requirement that we should track? |
Not necessarily, this can be done without storing errors in coords, e.g., by having a provider that computes the errors on |
I would agree on including the uncertainties. |
I wasn't talking about storage but about determining the uncertainties. And also about other places where they factor in. We first need to have an understanding of how to do those things before we can handle them here. |
I would not put it like that. We can include any uncertainties we know of. There is no need to have a complete and holistic understanding of all contributions, etc. I don't see a real obstacle to handling them here. |
The Lorentz correction factors$d$ -dependent and/or $\theta$ -dependent contributions into the data. The currently implementation does not include error bars, i.e., we assume it is exact. There is however significant and somewhat know uncertainty. For example, the error bars on $\theta$ are given (amongst other things) by the pixel/voxel size and the sample size. I think we should include this when such information is readily available.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: