Hello,
I've posted the chi^2 scaling also for data.
In this case the fit seems to be more unstable: multiplying errors by
0.1 led to a real bad fit (Chi^2 ~ 1800).
Heiko Lacker ha scritto:
>>> 2) I'm a bit surprised when comparing your fit on data with the plot shown
>>> at April 19: The statistics is not exactly the same (order 20% difference).
>>> Why is that?
>> I think it is due to the different tuning of parameters. Looking at the
>> plot of April 19th we can see that the amount of event fitted by
>> crystall ball in the signal region is greater than on the last plot. So
>> the number of signal events is lower.
>> In addition for the fit on data of april 19th I set the endpoint for
>> Argus and Cristall ball fixed, which is not so good when fitting data,
>> is that right?
>> So I would say that the latest fit (5 may) has more correct assumptions.
> This is not exactly what I meant. The number of events in the mES peak
> is different between both plots.
>
I think it is because the fit of 19 apr. gives more fraction to Cristal
ball than to signal function wrt the fit on 5 may.
Antonio
|