A Trying several fits with only 2 functions?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
Well I was reading this paper http://inspirehep.net/record/1409825
and came across this comment:
The simulated top quark and diboson samples as well as the data-driven background estimate are statistically limited at large $m_T$. Therefore the expected number of events is extrapolated into the high $m_T$ region using fits. Several fits are carried out, exploring various fit ranges as well as the two fit functions f(m_T) = e^{-a} m^b_T m_T^{c \log m_T} and f(m_T) = \frac{a}{(m_T + b)^{c}}. The fit with the best \chi^2 /\text{d.o. f.} is used as the extrapolated background contribution, with an uncertainty evaluated using the RMS of all attempted fits

My question is basically a statistical one... how can you make several fits using only 2 fitting functions?
Or do they mean something like fitting with func1 in some ranges [a,b] with a,b varying?
Also I do not understand well the uncertainty evaluation using the RMS of all attempted fits [how it works statistically].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChrisVer said:
Or do they mean something like fitting with func1 in some ranges [a,b] with a,b varying?
That's how I would interpret the different fit ranges they tested.
ChrisVer said:
Also I do not understand well the uncertainty evaluation using the RMS of all attempted fits [how it works statistically].
For a given m_T, you look at the average and RMS of all the values the different fits have at that point.
 
mfb said:
For a given m_T, you look at the average and RMS of all the values the different fits have at that point.

hmm... even if those fits were made over a partially common range? eg [200,300] and [250,400] ?
 
The fits are correlated, sure, but you are not studying the sensitivity to the data fluctuations here, only the sensitivity to the fit method.
 
well my problem mainly comes from such a sketch I did on the scratch (so sorry for the wriggles and so on)...
maxresdefault.jpg

Obviously trying to determine an error based on what values the f1 and f2 have in some ranges (at eg the blue's peak) can be problematic...especially if your best fit happens to be that of f1.
 
Last edited:
Well, if the fits look like that, you are doing something wrong.
 
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}...

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Back
Top