Urs: except the few very extreme points at large Lbar, -l1
all the other points would be (roughly) in the DCHI2=1
area - right? It might be more illustrative to plot dchi2
rather than chi2 only?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Urs Langenegger wrote:
>
> Hoi,
>
> as a quick check I looked at the chi2 for the fits with CLEO's
> settings:
>
>
> lBar l1 chi2
> -------------------------------
> 0.480, -0.30, 5.658 // default
>
> 0.545, -0.34, 5.596 // 00
> 0.781, -1.13, 7.944 // 01
> 0.475, -0.13, 5.943 // 02
>
> 0.425, -0.12, 5.330 // 03
> 0.435, -0.16, 6.690 // 04
> 0.495, -0.34, 5.901 // 05
>
> 0.495, -0.16, 5.429 // 06
> 0.545, -0.47, 6.068 // 07
> 0.545, -0.26, 4.509 // 08
>
> 0.59, -0.62, 6.604 // 09
> 0.59, -0.34, 5.114 // 10
> 0.70, -0.95, 7.791 // 11
>
> 0.70, -0.69, 6.410 // 12
> 0.75, -1.08, 7.799 // 13
> 0.75, -0.95, 7.419 // 14
> 0.80, -1.2, 8.593 // 15
>
>
> For illustration, you can see the same here
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/061603/chi2.eps.gz
>
> Remember, this is all nonresonant MC only. We clearly get
> significantly worse chi2 when going "down" in lambda1.
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>
>
|