# Measuring Line Parameters with an HETG/ACIS-S Spectrum

Sherpa Threads (CIAO 4.11 Sherpa v1)

## Overview

#### Synopsis:

After having created or downloaded a set of PHA2 and response files (RMFs and ARFs), for a HETG/ACIS-S observation, perform a simple fit to one of the line features present in the spectrum. This thread takes the user through a calculation of the error bars on the line normalizations, positions, and widths, and shows how to calculate the line equivalent widths.

For those wishing to perform their analysis with XSPEC, the PHA2 file must first be split into individual type 1 PHA files, and then grouped to increase the signal-to-noise in each spectral bin. The Grouping a Grating Spectrum CIAO thread shows how to do this, and the procedure is also included within this thread.

#### Run this thread if:

You are working with a HETG/ACIS-S data set, and want to begin a simple analysis of the data.

**Related Links:**

**Last Update:** 11 Dec 2018 -
reviewed for CIAO 4.11, revised screen output

## Contents

**Data Preparation****Load the Spectrum and Responses****Group and Filter the Data****Defining the Source Models****Fitting****Adding Lines to the Model and Fitting Again****Examine the Fit Results****Calculate the Equivalent Width of a Line and Continuum Flux****Scripting It****Summary****History**-
**Images**

## Data Preparation

This thread makes use of archival data products for Vela X-1, downloaded from TGcat. They were obtained by performing a "Search by Name" on Vela X-1 (using the SIMBAD name resolver), then choosing "view → file table" for the target, and clicking the download arrow next to each filename. These files were unzipped and placed in the directory in which the data analysis is to be performed.

Note that we are not considering any background files. For HETG/ACIS-S observations, the background is suppressed by the process of order sorting. That is, an event at a given location along the grating arms must fall into a narrow range of energies (as determined by the CCD) in order for it to be considered a valid dispersed photon. Most background events do not meet these "order sorting" criteria. For this, and many other HETG/ACIS-S observations, the first simple analysis can be performed without reference to the background. (Detailed analysis of low S/N spectra likely would require proper consideration of the background. See the Fitting Grating Data thread for an example of analysis including background data).

Those using either *Sherpa* or
ISIS
to perform their analysis can use the data files directly in
the analysis; skip to the "Load the
Spectrum and Responses" section.

XSPEC users, however, must split and group the spectra before the analysis as described here.

## Load the Spectrum and Responses

Start a *Sherpa* session:

unix% sherpa ----------------------------------------------------- Welcome to Sherpa: CXC's Modeling and Fitting Package ----------------------------------------------------- CIAO 4.11 Sherpa version 1 Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Python 3.5.4 (default, Oct 15 2018, 13:47:46) Type 'copyright', 'credits' or 'license' for more information IPython 6.5.0 -- An enhanced Interactive Python. Type '?' for help. IPython profile: sherpa sherpa>

We begin by reading the PHA2 file that contains the grating spectra.
This file contains 12 spectra, 3 spectral orders each for both
positive and negative order HEG and MEG spectra. They are stored in
the order: HEG -3, -2, -1, 1, 2, 3; MEG -3, -2, -1, 1, 2, 3. By
default, *Sherpa* will read in all 12 spectral files in this order.

We are only interested, however, in the first-order spectra (positive and negative); therefore, we use a Data Model-type filter to select the third and fourth, ninth, and tenth rows of the PHA2 file (HEG -/+1 and MEG -/+1, respectively).

sherpa> load_pha("pha2[#row=3,4,9,10]") WARNING: systematic errors were not found in file 'pha2[#row=3,4,9,10]' statistical errors were found in file 'pha2[#row=3,4,9,10]' but not used; to use them, re-read with use_errors=True read background_up into a dataset from file pha2[#row=3,4,9,10] read background_down into a dataset from file pha2[#row=3,4,9,10] Multiple data sets have been input: 1-4

Alternatively, one could use a filter to select all negative and postitive first-order spectra via the TG_M keyword:

sherpa> load_pha("pha2[TG_M=-1,1]")

Note that associated background spectra (two each for each spectrum, one from either side of the gratings arm) will be read in with the source spectra. However, unless the subtract command is called, or unless one creates a background model, they will not be part of the fitting process. For the remainder of this thread, we ignore these background spectra.

We now read in the associated ARF files and assign them to their corresponding data sets, then do the same for the RMF files.

sherpa> load_arf(1,"heg_-1.arf") sherpa> load_arf(2,"heg_1.arf") sherpa> load_arf(3,"meg_-1.arf") sherpa> load_arf(4,"meg_1.arf") sherpa> load_rmf(1,"heg_-1.rmf") sherpa> load_rmf(2,"heg_1.rmf") sherpa> load_rmf(3,"meg_-1.rmf") sherpa> load_rmf(4,"meg_1.rmf")

## Group and Filter the Data

*Sherpa* allows one to bin the spectra during the analysis
session; see the *Sherpa* thread *Changing the grouping scheme of a data set
within Sherpa* for details. We bin each of the spectra to have a minimum of 20 counts per energy channel.

sherpa> group_counts(1,20) sherpa> group_counts(2,20) sherpa> group_counts(3,20) sherpa> group_counts(4,20)

For the purposes of this analysis, we are interested in fitting the line near 6.4 keV. We restrict the energy range to 5-7 keV for all four spectra using the notice command, since the same energy filter is to be applied to all data set IDs; the notice_id command is available for filtering data sets individually.

sherpa> notice(5.,7.) sherpa> show_filter() Data Set Filter: 1 5.0096-6.9904 Energy (keV) Data Set Filter: 2 4.9721-6.9910 Energy (keV) Data Set Filter: 3 4.9999-9.5411 Energy (keV) Data Set Filter: 4 5.0154-9.5411 Energy (keV)

The spectra can all be plotted in the same figure using the plot command. We select all four plots to be considered "current" so that changing the axis will be applied to all of them, and then we choose the y-axes to be logarithmic.

sherpa> plot("data",1,"data",2,"data",3,"data",4) sherpa> current_plot("all") sherpa> log_scale(Y_AXIS) sherpa> print_window("all",["format","eps"])

The plot, shown in Figure 1, is also saved in EPS format to the file "all.eps".

[Version: full-size, encapsulated postscript]

### Figure 1: Plot of the +1 and -1 HEG and MEG spectra

The MEG spectra do not have very good statistics in the region of interest; therefore, we delete these data sets from the current session before proceeding with the fits.

sherpa> delete_data(3) sherpa> delete_data(4)

The data sets currently being considered in the analysis can be viewed with the show_data, show_bkg, and show_all commands:

sherpa> show_data() Data Set: 1 Filter: 5.0096-6.9904 Energy (keV) Bkg Scale: 0.248829 Noticed Channels: 7597-7888 name = pha2[#row=3,4,9,10] channel = Float64[8192] counts = Float64[8192] staterror = None syserror = None bin_lo = Float64[8192] bin_hi = Float64[8192] grouping = Float64[8192] quality = Float64[8192] exposure = 83150.1366728 backscal = 1.0 areascal = 1.0 grouped = True subtracted = False units = energy rate = True plot_fac = 0 response_ids = [1] background_ids = [1, 2] RMF Data Set: 1:1 name = heg_-1.rmf detchans = 8192 energ_lo = Float64[8192] energ_hi = Float64[8192] n_grp = UInt64[8192] f_chan = UInt32[8192] n_chan = UInt32[8192] matrix = Float64[841124] offset = 1 e_min = Float64[8192] e_max = Float64[8192] ethresh = 1e-10 ARF Data Set: 1:1 name = heg_-1.arf energ_lo = Float64[8192] energ_hi = Float64[8192] specresp = Float64[8192] bin_lo = Float64[8192] bin_hi = Float64[8192] exposure = 83149.4231809 ethresh = 1e-10 Background Data Set: 1:1 Filter: 5.3913,8.8601 Energy (keV) Noticed Channels: 7435-8150 name = pha2[#row=3,4,9,10] channel = Float64[8192] counts = Float64[8192] staterror = None syserror = None bin_lo = Float64[8192] bin_hi = Float64[8192] grouping = Float64[8192] quality = Float64[8192] exposure = 83150.1366728 backscal = 4.0188284 areascal = None grouped = True subtracted = False units = energy rate = True plot_fac = 0 response_ids = [] background_ids = [] Background Data Set: 1:2 Filter: 4.8200,9.1407 Energy (keV) Noticed Channels: 7273-8192 name = pha2[#row=3,4,9,10] channel = Float64[8192] counts = Float64[8192] staterror = None syserror = None bin_lo = Float64[8192] bin_hi = Float64[8192] grouping = Float64[8192] quality = Float64[8192] exposure = 83150.1366728 backscal = 4.0188284 areascal = None grouped = True subtracted = False units = energy rate = True plot_fac = 0 response_ids = [] background_ids = [] Data Set: 2 Filter: 4.9721-6.9910 Energy (keV) Bkg Scale: 0.248829 Noticed Channels: 7588-7891 name = pha2[#row=3,4,9,10] channel = Float64[8192] counts = Float64[8192] staterror = None syserror = None bin_lo = Float64[8192] bin_hi = Float64[8192] grouping = Float64[8192] quality = Float64[8192] exposure = 83150.1366728 backscal = 1.0 areascal = 1.0 grouped = True subtracted = False units = energy rate = True plot_fac = 0 response_ids = [1] background_ids = [1, 2] RMF Data Set: 2:1 name = heg_1.rmf detchans = 8192 energ_lo = Float64[8192] energ_hi = Float64[8192] n_grp = UInt64[8192] f_chan = UInt32[8192] n_chan = UInt32[8192] matrix = Float64[841124] offset = 1 e_min = Float64[8192] e_max = Float64[8192] ethresh = 1e-10 ARF Data Set: 2:1 name = heg_1.arf energ_lo = Float64[8192] energ_hi = Float64[8192] specresp = Float64[8192] bin_lo = Float64[8192] bin_hi = Float64[8192] exposure = 83150.6981615 ethresh = 1e-10 Background Data Set: 2:1 Filter: 7.7908 Energy (keV) Noticed Channels: 7035-8192 name = pha2[#row=3,4,9,10] channel = Float64[8192] counts = Float64[8192] staterror = None syserror = None bin_lo = Float64[8192] bin_hi = Float64[8192] grouping = Float64[8192] quality = Float64[8192] exposure = 83150.1366728 backscal = 4.0188284 areascal = None grouped = True subtracted = False units = energy rate = True plot_fac = 0 response_ids = [] background_ids = [] Background Data Set: 2:2 Filter: 3.7843,6.8976 Energy (keV) Noticed Channels: 6538-8018 name = pha2[#row=3,4,9,10] channel = Float64[8192] counts = Float64[8192] staterror = None syserror = None bin_lo = Float64[8192] bin_hi = Float64[8192] grouping = Float64[8192] quality = Float64[8192] exposure = 83150.1366728 backscal = 4.0188284 areascal = None grouped = True subtracted = False units = energy rate = True plot_fac = 0 response_ids = [] background_ids = []

## Defining the Source Models

We will first fit a broad continuum to the spectra, without any lines. The XSPEC power-law model (xspowerlaw) is chosen for the continuum. It is assigned as the source for data set 1 and given the model name powr; the model name is then used to assign the same source model to data set 2.

sherpa> set_source(1,xspowerlaw.powr) sherpa> set_source(2,powr) sherpa> show_source() Model: 1 xspowerlaw.powr Param Type Value Min Max Units ----- ---- ----- --- --- ----- powr.phoindex thawed 1 -2 9 powr.norm thawed 1 0 1e+24 Model: 2 xspowerlaw.powr Param Type Value Min Max Units ----- ---- ----- --- --- ----- powr.phoindex thawed 1 -2 9 powr.norm thawed 1 0 1e+24

## Fitting

The fit statistic is set to be χ^{2} with the
data counts acting as the variance (i.e., a Gaussian approximation to
simple Poisson statistics). Both data sets are fit simultaneously.

sherpa> set_stat("chi2datavar") sherpa> fit() WARNING: data set 1 has associated backgrounds, but they have not been subtracted, nor have background models been set WARNING: data set 2 has associated backgrounds, but they have not been subtracted, nor have background models been set Data Sets = 1, 2 Method = levmar Statistic = chi2datavar Initial fit statistic = 5.98398e+08 Final fit statistic = 321.803 at function evaluation 77 Data points = 56 Degrees of freedom = 54 Probability [Q-value] = 9.16795e-40 Reduced statistic = 5.95931 Change in statistic = 5.98397e+08 powr.PhoIndex -1.36276 +/- 0.336331 powr.norm 1.98057e-05 +/- 1.18241e-05

At any time, the results of the last fit can be displayed using the show_fit command. The fit yields the following results:

sherpa> show_fit() Optimization Method: LevMar name = levmar ftol = 1.19209289551e-07 xtol = 1.19209289551e-07 gtol = 1.19209289551e-07 maxfev = None epsfcn = 1.19209289551e-07 factor = 100.0 verbose = 0 Statistic: Chi2DataVar Chi Squared with data variance. The variance in each bin is estimated from the data value in that bin. See also `Chi2Gehrels`, `Chi2XSpecVar` and `Chi2ModVar`. If the number of counts in each bin is large, then the shape of the Poisson distribution from which the counts are sampled tends asymptotically towards that of a Gaussian distribution, with variance sigma(i)^2 = N(i,S) + [A(S)/A(B)]^2 N(i,B) where N is the number of on-source (and off-source) bins included in the fit. The background term appears only if an estimate of the background has been subtracted from the data. See Also -------- Chi2Gehrels, Chi2ModVar, Chi2XspecVar Fit:Datasets = 1, 2 Method = levmar Statistic = chi2datavar Initial fit statistic = 5.98398e+08 Final fit statistic = 321.803 at function evaluation 77 Data points = 56 Degrees of freedom = 54 Probability [Q-value] = 9.16795e-40 Reduced statistic = 5.95931 Change in statistic = 5.98397e+08 powr.PhoIndex -1.36276 +/- 0.336331 powr.norm 1.98057e-05 +/- 1.18241e-05

The results of these fits can then be plotted. Here we choose to display just the data and fits, not the residuals, and use logarithmic y-axes.

sherpa> plot("fit",1,"fit",2) sherpa> current_plot("all") sherpa> log_scale(Y_AXIS) sherpa> print_window("pl",["format","eps"])

The plot, shown in Figure 2, is also saved in EPS format to the file "pl.eps".

[Version: full-size, encapsulated postscript]

### Figure 2: Continuum Fit to the Data

## Adding Lines to the Model and Fitting Again

We start by creating a Gaussian model component for the
feature at 6.4 keV, named g1 and set the Gaussian
normalization to 10^{-4}.

The create_model_component command is used to establish the model component before setting the complex source expressions.

sherpa> create_model_component("xsgaussian","g1") <XSgaussian model instance 'xsgaussian.g1'> sherpa> g1.norm=1.e-4

We create a model with a power-law continuum plus the Gaussian line components, examine the source definition for one of the data sets (they are identical), then fit the data.

sherpa> set_source(1,powr+g1) sherpa> set_source(2,powr+g1) sherpa> show_source(1) Model: 1 (xspowerlaw.powr + xsgaussian.g1) Param Type Value Min Max Units ----- ---- ----- --- --- ----- powr.phoindex thawed -1.36276 -2 9 powr.norm thawed 1.98057e-05 0 1e+24 g1.linee thawed 6.5 0 1e+06 keV g1.sigma thawed 0.1 0 10 keV g1.norm thawed 0.0001 0 1e+24 sherpa> fit() WARNING: data set 1 has associated backgrounds, but they have not been subtracted, nor have background models been set WARNING: data set 2 has associated backgrounds, but they have not been subtracted, nor have background models been set Datasets = 1, 2 Method = levmar Statistic = chi2datavar Initial fit statistic = 366.776 Final fit statistic = 53.3692 at function evaluation 70 Data points = 56 Degrees of freedom = 51 Probability [Q-value] = 0.383285 Reduced statistic = 1.04645 Change in statistic = 313.407 powr.PhoIndex -0.912574 +/- 0.35764 powr.norm 4.18777e-05 +/- 2.64444e-05 g1.LineE 6.3945 +/- 0.00115733 g1.Sigma 0.00956428 +/- 0.00172542 g1.norm 0.000184658 +/- 1.1385e-05

[Version: full-size, encapsulated postscript]

### Figure 3: Continuum Fit to the Data

## Examine the Fit Results

Plotting out our results (Figure 3), we see
that we have a good fit to the spectra, including a line
component. We can now explore the errors in the line
parameters using the conf() command to run the *Sherpa* confidence
routines. As is common in X-ray astronomy, we search for
the 90% confidence level values for one interesting
parameter (i.e., the variation of the parameter of interest
that when refitting the remaining unfrozen parameters yields
a change in the χ^{2} value of 2.706). This corresponds to
an error bar of 1.64σ (1σ being the 68% confidence
interval), and set this as the default error value in the
confidence routines via the set_conf_opt command. We then
run conf for the three parameters of each of the
Gaussian model components: line energy, line width, and line
normalization.

sherpa> set_conf_opt("sigma",1.64) sherpa> conf(g1.linee,g1.sigma,g1.norm) WARNING: data set 1 has associated backgrounds, but they have not been subtracted, nor have background models been set WARNING: data set 2 has associated backgrounds, but they have not been subtracted, nor have background models been set g1.LineE lower bound: -0.00189519 g1.norm lower bound: -1.86834e-05 g1.Sigma lower bound: -0.00318074 g1.norm upper bound: 1.86903e-05 g1.LineE upper bound: 0.00189851 g1.Sigma upper bound: 0.00283821 Datasets = 1, 2 Confidence Method = confidence Iterative Fit Method = None Fitting Method = levmar Statistic = chi2datavar confidence 1.64-sigma (89.8995%) bounds: Param Best-Fit Lower Bound Upper Bound ----- -------- ----------- ----------- g1.LineE 6.3945 -0.00189519 0.00189851 g1.Sigma 0.00956484 -0.00318074 0.00283821 g1.norm 0.000184658 -1.86834e-05 1.86903e-05

We see that the line position is determined to approximately 0.002
keV, i.e., an equivalent velocity of 80 km/s. This is essentially the
*limit of the HEG spectral resolution*. The line position is also 0.005
keV lower in energy than expected, equivalent to a 230 km/sec
redshift.

The line width is <0.012 keV (i.e., <560 km/sec), but is likely >0.006 keV (i.e., >280 km/sec). Again, these are near the limits of the capabilities of the HEG detector, but far better than the limits one could place with CCD detectors.

Finally, we see that the line normalization is determined to within +/-10%.

We can now plot the data, fits, and residuals (i.e., four separate plots), all on one figure. We select the first and second plots (i.e., the data and fits, plots "plot1" and "plot2") to have logarithmic y-axes. We then print the resulting figure (Figure 4) to an EPS file, sherpa_one_line.eps:

sherpa> plot("fit",1,"fit",2,"delchi",1,"delchi",2) sherpa> current_plot("plot1") sherpa> log_scale(Y_AXIS) sherpa> current_plot("plot2") sherpa> log_scale(Y_AXIS) sherpa> print_window("sherpa_one_line",["format","eps"])

[Version: full-size, encapsulated postscript]

### Figure 4: Fit and Residuals to the Spectral Line

To explore whether adding another, broader line component changes the results any, we create a second Gaussian component, and call it g2. We then define a model consisting of a power-law plus two Gaussian components, and apply it to both data sets. We change the normalization of the second Gaussian to be somewhat smaller, then fit the data.

sherpa> create_model_component("xsgaussian","g2") <XSgaussian model instance 'xsgaussian.g2'> sherpa> g2.norm=1.e-4 sherpa> set_model(1,powr+g1+g2) sherpa> set_model(2,powr+g1+g2) sherpa> fit() WARNING: data set 1 has associated backgrounds, but they have not been subtracted, nor have background models been set WARNING: data set 2 has associated backgrounds, but they have not been subtracted, nor have background models been set Datasets = 1, 2 Method = levmar Statistic = chi2datavar Initial fit statistic = 157.78 Final fit statistic = 47.2091 at function evaluation 434 Data points = 56 Degrees of freedom = 48 Probability [Q-value] = 0.505171 Reduced statistic = 0.983524 Change in statistic = 110.569 powr.PhoIndex 1.70777 +/- 2.38088 powr.norm 0.00327119 +/- 0.0127288 g1.LineE 6.39445 +/- 0.00116623 g1.Sigma 0.00889812 +/- 0.0018528 g1.norm 0.000180085 +/- 1.1658e-05 g2.LineE 6.59739 +/- 0.121619 g2.Sigma 0.43752 +/- 0.225138 g2.norm 0.000152171 +/- 0.000148234 sherpa> conf() WARNING: data set 1 has associated backgrounds, but they have not been subtracted, nor have background models been set WARNING: data set 2 has associated backgrounds, but they have not been subtracted, nor have background models been set g1.LineE lower bound: -0.00190849 g1.norm lower bound: -1.92304e-05 g1.LineE upper bound: 0.00191562 g1.Sigma lower bound: -0.00346968 powr.PhoIndex lower bound: -3.06562 g1.norm upper bound: 1.92329e-05 g2.Sigma -: WARNING: The confidence level lies within (1.092544e-01, 1.123116e-01) g2.Sigma lower bound: -0.326737 g1.Sigma upper bound: 0.00295318 powr.PhoIndex upper bound: 13.0699 g2.LineE -: WARNING: The confidence level lies within (6.311673e+00, 6.316105e+00) g2.LineE lower bound: -0.283498 powr.norm -: WARNING: The confidence level lies within (5.090753e-05, 5.232004e-05) powr.norm lower bound: -0.00321957 g2.Sigma upper bound: 1.27247 g2.LineE upper bound: 0.873918 powr.norm +: WARNING: The confidence level lies within (7.242173e-02, 7.241075e-02) powr.norm upper bound: 0.0691451 g2.norm -: WARNING: The confidence level lies within (1.880199e-05, 1.873642e-05) g2.norm lower bound: -0.000133401 g2.norm upper bound: 0.000982883 Datasets = 1, 2 Confidence Method = confidence Iterative Fit Method = None Fitting Method = levmar Statistic = chi2datavar confidence 1.64-sigma (89.8995%) bounds: Param Best-Fit Lower Bound Upper Bound ----- -------- ----------- ----------- powr.PhoIndex 1.70777 -3.06562 13.0699 powr.norm 0.00327119 -0.00321957 0.0691451 g1.LineE 6.39445 -0.00190849 0.00191562 g1.Sigma 0.00889812 -0.00346968 0.00295318 g1.norm 0.000180085 -1.92304e-05 1.92329e-05 g2.LineE 6.59739 -0.283498 0.873918 g2.Sigma 0.43752 -0.326737 1.27247 g2.norm 0.000152171 -0.000133401 0.000982883

The inclusion of the second line component does not greatly affect the conclusions about the parameters of the first line component. The line centroid is the same with comparable error bars. The uncertainty on the line width has increased slightly, as has the uncertainty on the line normalization.

We plot the results for this fit in a manner identical to the one Gaussian line fit (Figure 5).

sherpa> plot("fit",1,"fit",2,"delchi",1,"delchi",2) sherpa> current_plot("plot1") sherpa> log_scale(Y_AXIS) sherpa> current_plot("plot2") sherpa> log_scale(Y_AXIS) sherpa> print_window("sherpa_two_line",["format","eps"])

[Version: full-size, encapsulated postscript]

### Figure 5: HEG +/-1 Order Two Gaussian Component Fit

Given that the extra component adds little to the description of the data, we drop it from the model and refit the data with a single line, resulting in the same parameters from before.

sherpa> set_model(1,powr+g1) sherpa> set_model(2,powr+g1) sherpa> fit() WARNING: data set 1 has associated backgrounds, but they have not been subtracted, nor have background models been set WARNING: data set 2 has associated backgrounds, but they have not been subtracted, nor have background models been set Datasets = 1, 2 Method = levmar Statistic = chi2datavar Initial fit statistic = 121.647 Final fit statistic = 53.3692 at function evaluation 99 Data points = 56 Degrees of freedom = 51 Probability [Q-value] = 0.383285 Reduced statistic = 1.04645 Change in statistic = 68.3405 powr.PhoIndex -0.912574 +/- 0.35764 powr.norm 4.18778e-05 +/- 2.64445e-05 g1.LineE 6.3945 +/- 0.00115733 g1.Sigma 0.00956428 +/- 0.00172542 g1.norm 0.000184658 +/- 1.1385e-05

## Calculate the Equivalent Width of a Line and Continuum Flux

Rather than merely presenting the line normalizations, we
can instead calculate the line equivalent width. The line
equivalent width is an often used measure for the line
strength relative to the underlying continuum. *Sherpa* has
a function for evaluating the equivalent width,
eqwidth. The required inputs are the
source model *absent* the line feature of interest and the
source model *with* the line feature of interest.

Optionally, the data set number for which the equivalent width will be calculated can also be given as an input, but here as we apply the same model and parameters to both data sets, this is not necessary. There are also optional lo and hi arguments for restricting the calculation of the equivalent width to a subset of the full energy or wavelength range of a data set.

sherpa> eqwidth(powr,powr+g1) 0.811011851650702

The units of the equivalent width are the same as the units of the x-axis, in this case, keV. Thus the line equivalent width is ~811 eV, which indicates a very strong line. That is, there is as nearly as much flux in the line as there is in the continuum over the 6.0-7.0 keV region.

We can verify this by calculating fluxes directly, using the
calc_photon_flux and
calc_energy_flux commands. We first
calculate these fluxes from the full model (continuum plus
line) over just the 6.0-7.0 keV range. The returned fluxes are
in units of photons/cm^{2}/sec and
ergs/cm^{2}/sec, respectively.

sherpa> calc_photon_flux(6.,7.) 0.00041605434631919572 sherpa> calc_energy_flux(6.,7.) 4.3076192427398961e-12

Deleting the power-law continuum component, we calculate the flux values for just the line component. We do this by changing the model with set_model to only the Gaussian component without refitting.

sherpa> set_model(1,g1) sherpa> set_model(2,g1) sherpa> calc_photon_flux(6.,7.) 0.00018465793791707486 sherpa> calc_energy_flux(6.,7.) 1.8918448000041687e-12

Over this one keV bandwidth, the line contributes a fraction, ~1.84/(4.16-1.84)~0.79, to the photon flux. This is approximately consistent with the equivalent width calculation of 811 eV.

## Scripting It

The file
fit.py
is
a Python
script which performs the primary commands used above; it can be executed by typing
exec(open("fit.py").read())
on the *Sherpa* command line.

The *Sherpa* script command may be used
to save *everything* typed on the command line in a
*Sherpa* session:

sherpa> script(filename="sherpa.log", clobber=False)

(Note that restoring a *Sherpa* session from such a file
could be problematic since it may include syntax errors,
unwanted fitting trials, et cetera.)

The CXC is committed to helping *Sherpa* users transition to
new syntax as smoothly as possible. If you have existing
*Sherpa* scripts or save files, submit them to us via the
CXC Helpdesk and we will provide the
CIAO/*Sherpa* 4.11 syntax to you.

## Summary

As shown above, working with gratings spectra is fundamentally no
different than working with CCD spectra. Aside from the fact that
gratings data will often begin with a PHA2 file containing multiple
spectra, rather than a type 1 PHA file containing a single spectrum,
the analysis paths can be very much the same for both types of
spectra. (If one is performing analysis in either *Sherpa* or ISIS, the
PHA2 file can be used directly, whereas for XSPEC one has to use the
intermediate step of creating type 1 PHA files in order to be able to
bin the data.) The data are read in, response matrices are assigned,
models are defined and fit, and error bars on the parameters are
determined. Line fluxes and equivalent widths can be calculated
easily. Gratings spectra can even be slightly less complicated than
CCD spectra in that ACIS-S/HETG spectra often do not require a
background. (Again, order sorting of the spectra often ensures that
the background is negligible.)

## History

01 Apr 2009 | new for Sherpa 4.1 |

11 Jan 2010 | updated for CIAO 4.2 |

13 Jul 2010 | updated for CIAO 4.2 Sherpa v2: removal of S-Lang version of thread. |

22 Jan 2012 | reviewed for CIAO 4.4 (no changes) |

13 Dec 2012 | updated for CIAO 4.5: group commands no longer clear the existing data filter |

10 Dec 2013 | updated for CIAO 4.6: updated fit results and screen output |

27 Feb 2015 | updated for CIAO 4.7, no content change |

14 Dec 2015 | updated for CIAO 4.8, no content change |

10 Nov 2016 | updated for CIAO 4.9, no content change, updated fit results. |

30 May 2018 | updated for CIAO 4.10, no content change |

11 Dec 2018 | reviewed for CIAO 4.11, revised screen output |