chisq of Union2.1 data with Apr2013 Cosmomc
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: May 17 2013
- Affiliation: National Astronomical Observatories, CAS
chisq of Union2.1 data with Apr2013 Cosmomc
Hi everyone,
Does anyone know why the chisq of Union2.1 data is very small with the new version of cosmomc?
Thanks.
Yuting
Does anyone know why the chisq of Union2.1 data is very small with the new version of cosmomc?
Thanks.
Yuting
-
- Posts: 1943
- Joined: September 23 2004
- Affiliation: University of Sussex
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: May 17 2013
- Affiliation: National Astronomical Observatories, CAS
chisq of Union2.1 data with Apr2013 Cosmomc
Yes, I am confusing to get this chisq for 580 data.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: September 10 2014
- Affiliation: University of Edinburgh
chisq of Union2.1 data with Apr2013 Cosmomc
Hi, everyone,
I was wondering if anyone knows why this happens. I am using a slightly later version of the code, the Decenber 2013 one, and I keep getting a smaller than expected \chi^2 value for the Union2.1 dataset, around 130. I suppose one would expect a larger value given the number of objects in the sample.
Thank you,
Nelson Lima
I was wondering if anyone knows why this happens. I am using a slightly later version of the code, the Decenber 2013 one, and I keep getting a smaller than expected \chi^2 value for the Union2.1 dataset, around 130. I suppose one would expect a larger value given the number of objects in the sample.
Thank you,
Nelson Lima
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: May 17 2013
- Affiliation: National Astronomical Observatories, CAS
chisq of Union2.1 data with Apr2013 Cosmomc
Hi,
The reduced chi-square from Union2.1 data was set to unity by introducing the systematic errors. Without the systematic errors, chi-square is small.
Best,
Yuting
The reduced chi-square from Union2.1 data was set to unity by introducing the systematic errors. Without the systematic errors, chi-square is small.
Best,
Yuting