Normalization, reweighting, and the scale factor:

mborn
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I am about to begin my studies as an experimentalist and I keep hearing about these terms when someone represents his data as histograms.
Can some one here, please, give me a clear explanation about their meanings.
My background is theory and you can use as much mathematics as you can!

Thanks a lot in advance,

~mborn
 
Physics news on Phys.org
normalization: generally this term comes in spectrum...after getting a experimental spectrum one often normalize it...experimental spectrum and normalized spectrum are same but with different y-axis value..for e.g., area of a exp. spectrum is different from normalized spectrum..usually a normalized one's area is often 1 or some value.
reweighting..:similar to normalization..it depends on experiment.
scale factor: usually multiplying either x- or y-axis by a constant.
hope this help
 
To make things eaiser, let's say you are in a a particle physics experiment that is trying to discover a particle.
Now, for normalization, how can we make the area under the histogram equal one?
Can you elaborate more on reweighting? What is the difference between reweighting (to Monte Carlo) and normalization?

~mborn
 
Hi,
normalization(actually this is a general technique used everywhere not only for particle physics):
think..we have a exp. spectrum \int I(E)\;{\rm d}E=X
now we will normalize that spectrum such that area under the spectrum is 1.
So what ppl. usually do is
\int I_{\rm norm}(E)\;{\rm d}E=\frac{1}{X}\int I(E)\;{\rm d}E=1
This is how a normalization done.[but i am not completely sure..i assume others from this forum may correct us in case of error.]
Now i can give a example for weighing (i don't know exactly what is reweighing?).
in this integral:
\int \frac {I(E)}{E}\;{\rm d}E
I(E) is weighed by a factor of (1/E)
hope it may help..
 
Last edited:
Thank you Rajini,

So, I am OK now with normalization! Still I hope someone here will explain reweighting for us.
As far as I know, reweighting is to divide the number of events in each bin of a histogram by the total number of events. If this is true, then why do we need to do reweighting?

~mborn
 
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top