 |
 |
Hi, here is the output... Antonio Heiko Lacker ha scritto: > 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 >>>>