 |
 |
Hi Antionio, the errors are definitely too huge. Something must be wrong. Could you please post also the fit parameters and their errors? Heiko On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote: > Ok, let's try this gaussian > > I get the following table...(errors are so huge: is it normal?) > > > #mx_l mx_h corr err_corr > 0.00 1.55 1.821 +- 0.577 > 1.55 1.90 3.411 +- 95.487 > 1.90 2.20 2.839 +- 96.872 > 2.20 2.50 2.366 +- 100.470 > 2.50 2.80 1.948 +- 106.299 > 2.80 3.10 1.583 +- 114.362 > 3.10 3.40 1.271 +- 124.660 > 3.40 3.70 1.008 +- 137.194 > 3.70 4.20 0.726 +- 157.384 > 4.20 5.00 0.406 +- 198.663 > > Antonio > > Heiko Lacker ha scritto: > > Hi Antonio, > > > > maybe this is not too surprising after all since the first bin > > contains the largest fraction of the signal. > > > > Now, that I'm thinking of it: there is a fit function which > > would avoid the problem of becoming negative, but which would > > nevertheless give probably a reasonable fit to the correction > > factors: a Gaussian. > > > > Cheers, > > Heiko > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Antonio Petrella wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> here are the results of the jobs with new correction factors strategy > >> (i.e. fit with a first order polynomial starting from the second bin): > >> > >> PBRBR= (109 +- 10 +- 4) e^-4 > >> chi^2 of the mx fit = 25.12/7 > >> > >> I also run the systematics and the value I get is > >> sigma=22.5% > >> > >> These are the values that I should add to the talk, but are not > >> encouraging... > >> > >> Antonio > >> >