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:
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 |