3CSL: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 208: Line 208:
     1    3      36555          0.985            0.9971        0.2041
     1    3      36555          0.985            0.9971        0.2041
     2    3      35630          0.989            1.0038        -0.0116
     2    3      35630          0.989            1.0038        -0.0116
These correlations are worse than what I like to see from MAD datasets. One might think that some of the badness is maybe due to the fact that we used an unrealistic high-resolution limit, but if we use INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=50 32 (this has to given three times, after each of the INPUT_FILE lines) the correlations are exactly the same.
These correlations are worse than what I like to see from MAD datasets. One might think that some of the badness is maybe due to the fact that we used an unrealistic high-resolution limit, but if we use INCLUDE_RESOLUTION_RANGE=50 3.2 (this has to given three times, after each of the INPUT_FILE lines) the correlations are exactly the same.
The file further reports  CHI^2-VALUE OF FIT OF CORRECTION FACTORS around 1.15 which indicates that the scaling model is not entirely adequate, but it is unclear what to change, so we leave it at that (we could use STRICT_ABSORPTION_CORRECTION=TRUE to bring the number closer to 1).
The file further reports  CHI^2-VALUE OF FIT OF CORRECTION FACTORS around 1.15 which indicates that the scaling model is not entirely adequate, but it is unclear what to change, so we leave it at that (we could use STRICT_ABSORPTION_CORRECTION=TRUE to bring the number closer to 1).


2,684

edits

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

Navigation menu