 |
 |
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 >>