Which Fit Should Be Chosen When Goodness of Fit Values Are Close?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fit
ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
Suppose I want to find a model for a background from the data of it...
One way is to try different fittings and compare the values of their ##\chi^2/NDF## if they're close to 1 or not.

However what happens when two fits are really close to one? For example if I take a ##M_{\gamma \gamma}## background for a Higgs, and apply an exponential drop fit or a polynomial of deg=2 fit, I am getting values: 0.975(expon) and 0.983 (polynomial)...
Physically I think the exponential is a better fitting function, but the statistics is telling me that the polynomial fits best...?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lies, damn lies, statistics !

Hard to say anything sensible without something to look at. Is there a significant difference between the .975 and .983 ?
 
I will post some figures and the printed results tomorrow because I don't have them in this machine.
 
So here I have the plots of the background fitted with Exponential p_0 e^{p_1 x} and Poly2 p_0 + p_1 x +p_2x^2

The (\chi^2/NDF)_{exp}=102.4/118 \approx 0.868
And (\chi^2/NDF)_{pol2}=104.2/117 \approx 0.8905

Typically I would say that the goodness of fit test tells me that both pol2 and expo are good to fit the data (compared to other tests I tried)...with pol2 being a little better , but expo being the physically motivated one.
 

Attachments

  • Expo.png
    Expo.png
    64.8 KB · Views: 503
  • POL2.png
    POL2.png
    39.1 KB · Views: 499
Last edited:
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Back
Top