Table 3: Correlation parameters. LHW = this paper, PTH05 = Prochaska et al. (2005), EPL07 = Ellison et al. (2007), Lin06 = Linsky et al. (2006), Ol06 = Oliveira et al. (2006).
Correlation Targets Data points $a\pm1\sigma$ $b\pm1\sigma$ Spearman test $\chi^{2}$/N
y=a+bx x= list intersection     correlation    
(TiII/HI) vs. (DI/HI) LHW + PTH05 16 (-3.6 $\pm $ 2.9) $\times$ 10-10 (1.66 $\pm $ 0.29) $\times$ 10-4 98% 1.3
(TiII/HI) vs. (DI/HI) Same without $\mu $Col 15 (-0.8 $\pm $ 2.3) $\times$ 10-10 (1.35 $\pm $ 0.22) $\times$ 10-4 99.97% 1.1
(TiII/HI) vs. (DI/HI) Same + EPL07 (no $\mu $Col) 19 (-0.6 $\pm $ 2.32) $\times$ 10-10 (1.29 $\pm $ 0.21) $\times$ 10-4 99.5% 1.0
(FeII/HI) vs. (DI/HI) Table 2 Lin06 38 (-1.56 $\pm $ 0.76) $\times$ 10-2 (4.96 $\pm $ 0.65) $\times$ 10+3 99.7% 1.6
(TiII/HI) vs. (DI/OI) (LHW + PTHO5) x (Oli06) 10 (-1.24 $\pm $ 3.29) $\times$ 10-10 (6.05 $\pm $ 1.45) $\times$ 10-8 98% 2.7
(TiII/HI) vs. (DI/OI) Same+EPLO7 12 (-2.07 $\pm $ 3.46) $\times$ 10-10 (6.46 $\pm $ 1.50) $\times$ 10-8 97% 2.3
(Fe/Fe0) vs. (DI/OI) (Table 2 Lin06) x (Oli06) 23 (3.5 $\pm $ 5.6) $\times$ 10-3 1.28 $\pm $ 0.22 99.6% 1.3
(Fe/Fe0) vs. (DI/OI) Same with 3 D/O %2 (see text) 23 (-0.5 $\pm $ 6.6) $\times$ 10-3 1.49 $\pm $ 0.26 99.95% 0.7
(TiII/DI) vs. (LogNH) LHW + PTH05 (no $\mu $Col) 15 (5.9 $\pm $ 2.5) $\times$ 10-4 (-2.34 $\pm $ 1.24) $\times$ 10-5 25% 1.46
(TiII/DI) vs. (LogNH) same + EPL07 19 (7.6 $\pm $ 1.8) $\times$ 10-4 (-3.2 $\pm $ 0.9) $\times$ 10-5 64% 1.8


Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text