DrClaude said: The problem with the Tsallis q-entropy appears when the parameter q is used as a fitting parameter. This gives too much flexibility to the Tsallis function, since it can encompass many functional forms, including a Gaussian and a Lorentzian. Basically, you can fit an elephant with it!

DrClaude said: So unless there is a physical basis for a particular choice of q, this is just hunting for whatever fits. I must admit that I did not read the paper, only the abstract, but it sounds like q-fitting.

That's a good point, though I wouldn't go so far as that. Presumably it can encompass many functional forms, but a single parameter isn't going to providemuch flexibility. However, the criticism is solid because adding an additional fit parameter willimprove the fit, regardless of whether or not the parameter is justified. When doing such fitting, at a bare minimum it's important to show that there is sufficient improvement to the fit that something real is probably being captured.Yes, it's q-fitting. They could probably fix this shortcoming with some simulations that demonstrate that it's warranted. Assuming the calculations are tractable, our understanding of nuclear physics should be more than adequate to determine whether or not Tsallis statistics with q in the range used by this paper is justified.