Talk:Voigt profile

message: Could we add some references? Particularly concerning the cumulative distribution function, which is mapped but not defined.129.234.4.1 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to find some references. Meanwhile, I have entered the CDF. If you can check it in any way, please do. PAR 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello, do you where I can find the reference for the CDF?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.56.7 (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

text: F(x;\mu,\sigma)=\operatorname{Re}\left[\frac{1}{2}+
\frac{\operatorname{erf}(z)}{2}
+\frac{iz^2}{\pi}\,_2F_2\left(1,1;\frac{3}{2},2;-z^2\right)\right].
Skewray (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CDF 

message: Are you sure, that fL is 2γ?
I thought, γ is already the FWHM of the Lorentz-Line, so that just fL = γ.
?
149.220.35.153 09:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - see my response on the Cauchy distribution page. PAR 15:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FWHM of Lorentz 

message: Could we put in a section on the pseudo-voigt? I feel that it is a necessary topic when discussing the Voigt profile as direct linear convolution is expensive.. The French version of this article has one =P
Stephen 14:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be fitting a Voigt to data soon, so I am also interested. The article mentions the pseudo-voigt profile(s) in the lead, but doesn't discuss it. Somebody should add that info! Danski14(talk) 03:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

text: {\displaystyle V_{p}(x; \gamma, \sigma)=\eta \cdot L(x; \gamma)+(1-\eta )\cdot G(x; \sigma)} \,\, {\displaystyle 0<\eta <1} \, \, \, 0 < \eta < 1 
That would then use terminology consistent with the rest of the page. Then delete phrase " \eta   is a function of full width at half maximum (FWHM) parameter" and go straight to the formula for  \eta  in terms of  f, f_L, f_G  and the corresponding equation for  f  which I guess is approximately the FHWM of the resulting pseudo-Voigt. 
I am curious what is accuracy between  f  and the  f_V  lower in the discussion. Has that been published?
Microsiliconinc (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

text: The as-written section is really confusing to me. I agree with the proposal above. Get rid of the phrase "eta is a function of..." 2601:2C6:4A7F:84CC:60EE:87EE:6EEB:7C53 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-voigt 

message: The Voigt width formula from [1] had a typo in the last significant figure of one of the coefficients. I fixed it.
Adinov (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor correction 

message: The black curves (sigma = 1.53, gamma = 0) in the top right box are wrong. The Voigt function only supports sigma, gamma > 0. At gamma = 0, the Lorentz profile, and therefore the Voigt function must both evaluate to zero. Pulu (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curves make no sense 

message: Could someone add the importance of the damping profile and the Doppler profile in creating the Voigt profile? In astronomy this is important and might add some context to how the Voigt profile is used in practice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antw18 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damping profile 

message: I just added the partial derivatives for the Voigt profile and its x-derivatives with respect to all the other parameters. Even though I checked everything multiple times and compared the calculations with numerical approximations, it would be great if somebody else could review them. After all these derivations and formula typing, it is quite hard not to overlook a typo.
Thanks in advance. MothNik (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the partial derivatives of the Faddeeva-function to Faddeeva function if this helps in the review. MothNik (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivatives 

message: I have been reading the papers of Olivero et al. and Kielkopf on the approximate expression for the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the Voigtian distribution as a function of the respective Lorentzian and Gaussian FWHMs.
I found that the coefficients provided by Kielkopf (also cited in Olivero et al.) do not exactly match those published in the Wikipedia article.
According to Kielkopf's paper (Eq. 11), the coefficient multiplying the first  f_L outside the square root is  (1+ \epsilon \ln(2))/2, and the coefficient multiplying
 f_L^2 inside the square root is  (1- \epsilon \ln(2))^2/4, where  \epsilon = 0. 0990. These coefficients result in 0.5343 and 0.2169, respectively, which are subtly different from the values provided in the current Wikipedia article: 0.5346 and 0.2166, respectively. Bongw (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Values of the coefficients in the FWHM approximation