Although we use a spectrometer to measure the spectrum of a source,
what the spectrometer obtains is not the actual spectrum, but rather
photon counts ( ) within specific instrument channels, ( ). This
observed spectrum is related to the actual spectrum of the source
( ) by:
(2.1)
Where is the instrumental response and is proportional to the
probability that an incoming photon of energy will be detected in
channel . Ideally, then, we would like to determine the actual
spectrum of a source, , by inverting this equation, thus deriving
for a given set of . Regrettably, this is not possible in
general, as such inversions tend to be non-unique and unstable to
small changes in . (For examples of attempts to circumvent these
problems see Blissett & Cruise (1979); Kahn &
Blissett (1980); Loredo & Epstein (1989)).
The usual alternative is to choose a model spectrum, , that can be
described in terms of a few parameters (i.e.,
), and
match, or “fit” it to the data obtained by the spectrometer. For each
, a predicted count spectrum ( ) is calculated and compared to
the observed data ( ). Then a “fit statistic” is computed from the
comparison and used to judge whether the model spectrum “fits” the
data obtained by the spectrometer.
The model parameters then are varied to find the parameter values that
give the most desirable fit statistic. These values are referred to as
the best-fit parameters. The model spectrum, , made up of the
best-fit parameters is considered to be the best-fit model.
The most common fit statistic in use for determining the “best-fit”
model is , defined as follows:
(2.2)
where is the (generally unknown) error for channel (e.g., if
are counts then is usually estimated by ;
see e.g. Wheaton et al. (1995)
for other possibilities).
Once a “best-fit” model is obtained, one must ask two questions:
- How confident can one be that the observed
can have been
produced by the best-fit model ? The answer to this
question is known as the “goodness-of-fit” of the model. The
statistic provides a well-known-goodness-of-fit
criterion for a given number of degrees of freedom ( , which is
calculated as the number of channels minus the number of model
parameters) and for a given confidence level. If
exceeds a critical value (tabulated in many statistics
texts) one can conclude that is not an adequate
model for . As a general rule, one wants the “reduced
” (
) to be approximately equal to one
(i.e.
). A reduced that is much
greater than one indicates a poor fit, while a reduced
that is much less than one indicates that the errors on
the data have been over-estimated. Even if the best-fit model
( ) does pass the “goodness-of-fit” test, one still cannot
say that is the only acceptable model. For example, if the
data used in the fit are not particularly good, one may be able to
find many different models for which adequate fits can be found. In
such a case, the choice of the correct model to fit is a matter of
scientific judgment.
- For a given best-fit parameter (
), what is the range of
values within which one can be confident the true value of the
parameter lies? The answer to this question is the “confidence
interval” for the parameter. The confidence interval for a given
parameter is computed by varying the parameter value until the
increases by a particular amount above the minimum, or
“best-fit” value. The amount that the is allowed to
increase (also referred to as the critical ) depends
on the confidence level one requires, and on the number of
parameters whose confidence space is being calculated. The critical
for common cases are given in the following table (from Avni 1976):
Confidence |
Parameters |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
0.68 |
1.00 |
2.30 |
3.50 |
0.90 |
2.71 |
4.61 |
6.25 |
0.99 |
6.63 |
9.21 |
11.30 |
HEASARC Home |
Observatories |
Archive |
Calibration |
Software |
Tools |
Students/Teachers/Public
Last modified: Friday, 23-Aug-2024 13:20:40 EDT
|