Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chi2/ndf bug #78

Closed
piberger opened this issue May 27, 2015 · 2 comments · Fixed by #79
Closed

chi2/ndf bug #78

piberger opened this issue May 27, 2015 · 2 comments · Fixed by #79

Comments

@piberger
Copy link
Contributor

Hi,

i looked at the chi2/ndf plots of the linear fit in the Vcal calibration because they looked suspicious and found a bug in /Analyse/TestResultClasses/CMSPixel/QualificationGroup/XrayCalibration/VcalCalibrationModule/VcalCalibrationROC/VcalCalibrationROC.py (master branch)
the real chi2/ndf is not saved as 'value' but as 'sigma' with the same value than the offset:

@@ -163,10 +163,10 @@ class TestResult(GeneralTestResult):
                 'Sigma': round(fit.GetParError(0), 3),
             },
             'chi2': {
-                'Value': round(fit.GetParameter(0), 3),
+                'Value': round(fit.GetChisquare() / fit.GetNDF(), 3),
                 'Label': 'Chi2',
                 'Unit': 'per NDF',
-                'Sigma': round(fit.GetChisquare() / fit.GetNDF(), 3),

Furthermore:
The errors we assume are probably too small that's why we get large values of chi2/ndf. If instead of the statistical error of the fit, a constant error of 0.4 Vcal (RMS of a reproducibility study I have done) is used for the peak position, the order of magnitude of the chi2/ndf becomes much better. But before using such constant it should be checked by other test centers if they obtain the same result.
In principle I think we should also consider an error of the conversion from gammas to electrons in silicon, but I haven't found any information on this yet and will search for it. If it is very small we can neglect it of course.

@veloxid
Copy link
Contributor

veloxid commented May 28, 2015

See issue #9

@piberger
Copy link
Contributor Author

should be fixed by #79, please someone cross check, #9 remains open

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants