 |
 |
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