Hi Antonio,

On Mon, 8 May 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote:

> 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).
Could you please also show the plot?

> 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.
I'm just comparing the number of entries in the histogram. Under the
assumption that the binning is the same the number of entries in the
two histograms are different.

Cheers,
Heiko

> 
>   Antonio
>