> >  Work 2/233/3
Scan of fits of MC pseudodata generated from the fit result to the b<120 mm impactparameter cut data.
 120 15,000 ns
 No background multiplicity correction was taken into account for the fit to the real data
 Question is, does this fit make sense and is it reliable?
 100 pseudodata spectra were generated using the fit function resulting from the fit to the data
 In the plots below, the real fit results are in the right most bin of the histograms.
 First I will show the normalized fit chisquare and probability for the 100 samples of pseudodata
 On the respective axes below the normalized chisquare and probability of the real fit are emphasized with the solid red lines for comparison to the MC fit results
 The important observation here is that the relative to the distribution of MC fit results, the chisquare, (while elevated at 1.12) of the fit to the real data is neither the highest, ~12% being equally or more aberrant in the >1 direction.
 Like wise this fit to data is also not the least probable in comparison to the pseudo data fit results.
 Just to verify the fits, here are the fit results for the three physical parameters in the fit function, with their "truth values" indicated in read, again these are the values obtained in the fit to the data
 Each parameter shows a random scattering around the truth values, as expected in fits to pseudodata generated with the same function.
A T_0 scan for the electron time distribution fit.
A T_0 variable was added to the time distribution function, and fixed in a series of fits to the data while varied between  100 to 100 ns.
 A T_0 offset can create a timedependent effect in the fit to the time spectrum, causing a poorer chisquare in the fit.
 Here I have varied a T_0 parameter in the fit function at values from 100 to 100 ns, and fixed this in the fit.
 Again, there was no background multiplicity correction applied to the errors, which would improve the chisquare by another small margine of ~2%, based on the T_0=0 comparison
 First of all the quality of the fit remains at a very similar level, improving slightly in the direction of small negative values at ~ 30 ns.
 I also observe a significant linear response, vs. the value of the T_0 constant, in the fit results of the three physical parameters.
 The shift from T_0=0 ns to T_0=30 ns is an effect of ~1 sigma for the molecular formation rate, ~1.5 sigma for the argon transfer rate and between 23 sigma for the Ar capture rate.
 In fact It is my understanding this brings these results in closer agreement with the capture fit results.
