Hi Antonio,
since numbers are so different I am still wondering whether I compare
the correct tables... Is the table from today and the table from April
12 (not using any links but the tables directly on the main page) the
correct ones to compare?
If so, the yields are so different that it should be enough to just
compare them to the number of events in the histograms to tell us
which fit obviously gives us weird numbers... have you looked at that?
Cheers,
Kerstin
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote:
> Hi Kerstin,
> that is exactly what I meant. The sample is right the same but yields
> are different. This happened just by switching to chi^2 fit.
>
> Probably I'm doing something wrong... but it's not clear to me where: I
> have followed the example on roofit web site
> (http://roofit.sourceforge.net/docs/classref/examples/fitgen3.cc.html)
> to make the chi^2 fit.
>
> Do ou have any suggestion?
>
> Bye...
> Antonio
>
> Kerstin Tackmann ha scritto:
> > Hi Antonio,
> >
> > can you be a little more clear what you mean by "numbers look quite
> > strange"? Do you fit the same samples as on April 12th? The yields
> > seem to be very different. But maybe I am just not comparing the
> > correct numbers...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kerstin
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> on the web page
> >> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~petrella/mesfits/mesfits.html
> >>
> >> I posted the result of the chi^2 scaling using a minimum chi^2 fit.
> >> This time we can see a variation on the yields and errors, but numbers
> >> look quite strange...
> >>
> >> Antonio
> >>
> >>
>
|