Changes between Version 15 and Version 16 of stacking_coverage.20130307

Timestamp:

Apr 22, 2013, 1:42:08 PM (13 years ago)

Author:

watersc1

Comment:

--

stacking_coverage.20130307

@@ -11 +11 @@
  * A2: Agreed.  Some consideration was made to switch to fitting a chi!^2 floor with an exponential rise with flux, but that should yield effectively the same result as the log-log fit used.
  * Q3: "What kind of errors do you assume when you fit stamp_chisqr versus stamp_flux?"
- * A3: We use no errors on this fit, so they are implicitly weighted equivalently.  This is certainly why the fit is biased when low-flux/high chi!^2 points are included (such as in [[wiki:stacking_coverage.20130307/fit.0.png]]).  The quick answer would be to use Poissonian error estimates, which would reduce the weight of these outliers.  I think the log-log fits reduce the weights of these outliers more (log10(~200)/log10(~30) < sqrt(~200)/sqrt(~30)).
+ * A3: We use no errors on this fit, so they are implicitly weighted equivalently.  This is certainly why the fit is biased when low-flux/high chi!^2 points are included (such as in [[wiki:fit.0.png]]).  The quick answer would be to use Poissonian error estimates, which would reduce the weight of these outliers.  I think the log-log fits reduce the weights of these outliers more (log10(~200)/log10(~30) < sqrt(~200)/sqrt(~30)).
 
 == 2013-04-19 ==