 |
 |
Hi Kerstin, > 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? Yes that's correct. I would have expected that the yields for the All MC fit from April 12 (NLL fit) and the yields for the fit with no error scaling from April 20 (Chi^2 fit) were the same. > 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? > Yes, since the dataset is the same for both fits, and has 1561024 entries, the wrong one is certainly the minimum chi^2 fit. Antonio > 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 >>>> >>>>