|
Re: Reduced chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic [message #65034 is a reply to message #65027] |
Mon, 09 February 2009 14:35  |
pgrigis
Messages: 436 Registered: September 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
giorgosioanno...@gmail.com wrote:
> But I don't really have to do anything with the errors. I hust give
> the data and the distribution, and IDL finds the parameters of the
> best curve fit and returns the reduced chisq.
In this case the absolute value of the reduced chi-square
is meaningless. You can still compare models (i.e. model
A "fits better" than model B if it has a lower chi-square in
the case of data with no error).
However, if your data is real world data, it will have
errors, and that is important information that you
should not neglect.
Ciao,
Paolo
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Reduced chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic [message #65064 is a reply to message #65050] |
Sun, 08 February 2009 16:45  |
pgrigis
Messages: 436 Registered: September 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
the reduced chi square is one if the error are accurate representation
of the errors in your data (with some assumption about their
distribution).
If you get chi-square much less than one, that means that you have
overestimated your errors.
Ciao,
Paolo
giorgosioanno...@gmail.com wrote:
> I got confused with the reduced chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic
> returned by the curvefit. Can anyone tell me what exactly this is? I
> had the impression that the fit is good when its value is near 1.
> However when I try to test it with some good fits I get really small
> values so I am not sure that what I thought is correct. For which
> values to we reject the good-fit hypothesis?
>
> In particular some of the data I have give me the following chi-
> square goodness-of-fit statistics after fitting them to a curve:
>
> chisq= 0.00018011358
> chisq= 0.00013042104
> chisq= 5.8597835e-005
>
> Are these good fits?
>
> And also what exactly is the unreduced chi-square goodness-of-fit
> statistic returned by the poly_fit and when do we reject the good-fit
> hypothesis there?
>
> Thanks,
> Giorgos
|
|
|