An option to compare key parameters of 2-5 fits would be very useful, similar to the module comparison tool that already exists.

Key parameters would be something like:

• Total DPS
• Speed
• Agility
• Warp Speed
• Total EHP
• Shield EHP (can merge with armor, take max)
• Armor EHP
• Capacitor Duration (minutes or % stable)
• Armor Repair Rate (EHP/s) (can merge with shield, take max)

After running migrad I get out the sigma=1 errors if I initially set errordef=1. However, I'd also like to access the sigma=2 errors without running migrad again (extremely slow!). In pyminuit I could simply run hesse setting up=4, but it seems the parameter up is not defined for iminuit. I cannot find the workaround anywhere in the documentation and would therefore like to ask here for a solution

The current examples converted:

• Exponential ✅
• Plot2D ✅
• Addition ✅
• Convolution ✅
• DP4 ✅
• Product ✅
• TDDP4(nice to have) ✅
• dalitz ✅
• SigGen ✅
• Chisquare ✅
• simpleFit ✅
• zachFit ✅
• pipipi0 ❌

The documentation for the scales parameter for sample_energy_flux (everything also holds for sample_photon_flux) claims that when correlated=False the scales parameter should be a 1D vector with n elements, and when correlated=True it is a 2D n x n matrix. This matches the underlying sherpa.sim.sample.ParameterScaleVector/Matrix classes that eventually get called (through a strin

The test suite contains a set of points to fit without indicating where those numbers came from. Plotting them in Excel suggests that the 3rd value (y = 21.119) may be a typo (instead of y = 2.119).

The value added by a test suite is only as good as the tests are meaningful. Does anyone know where these data came from? Were they measured from some physical process? Were they generated by a

I know that when I started contributing to the BEAST it was a challenge to understand how it worked through the code. I was thinking it may be useful to create a figure that shows how the code works through different the scripts and functions. If anyone knows how to do this programmatically, that might be easier. Manually someone may be able to do it with powerpoint of something?

(low effort bu

@marcuspetschlies you mentioned during a group meeting that you had some recommendations for the GEVP documentation, did I miss the pull-request for that? The docs seem unchanged to me.

Would be good to document how to add a new component model. E.g., add it to component_models.py and add the needed options to creating a combined model and read/write/plot functions.

We leave the writing of summaries to the community, so if you want to get involved with this project, this would be a great point to start.