Maximum likelihood method for polarization

[eneights]

This updates COSILike to enable polarization fitting in the CDS, and fixes a mistake with the polarization handling in the point source response.

This replaces PR #367. I'm opening this as a draft PR for now, since I still need to add an example notebook and add/fix unit tests.

[eneights]

This is ready to be looked at, but I have only tested it with the one GRB in the example notebook so far, and the fraction it outputs is not correct. This might just be due to the coarse response, but before merging, it should probably be tested on some DC3 GRBs

[israelmcmc]

Cool! @eneights Can you please share an executed tutorial (with outputs) to first see if we can reproduce your results?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 64.86486% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 81.26%. Comparing base (cc5f22b) to head (a059bb3).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cosipy/threeml/COSILike.py	63.88%	13 Missing ⚠️

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
cosipy/response/PointSourceResponse.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
cosipy/threeml/COSILike.py	71.65% <63.88%> (+1.78%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[eneights]

@israelmcmc Yes, just added it!

[israelmcmc]

Thanks, @eneights !

                                             value  negative_error  \
 source.spectrum.grb.polarization.degree  27.984015       -2.817586   
 source.spectrum.grb.polarization.angle   90.001559       -0.000649

Is the PD 0-100 or is it part of the issue your are fixing?