2,652
edits
3CSL: Difference between revisions
→Scaling
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 | 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). | ||