Hi all,
I've crosschecked the numbers from Daniele and tried to vary the scaling
factor btw: 1.69  1.82
The maximum variation of the central value was < 0.8% in both cases.
I'll provide soon the mes fits for each bin, togheter with the result of
weights calculated on generic.
Alessio
> Hi all,
>
> today, at the meeting, we discussed about the scaling factor
> between generic and cocktail MC for the ratio
>
> lumi(hybrid)/lumi(pure non resonant)
>
> used in the weights calculation and the goodness of the mes fits. I
> applied a loose cut on the purity (intpur>.2)
>
>
> These are the numbers:
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> nmix(cockMC) = 10366.3 + 139.558
> nnre(cockMC) = 12015.7 + 148.974
> nmix(geneMC) = 9764.37 + 156.282
> nnre(geneMC) = 6412.87 + 127.174
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> ratio mix/nre cocktail = 0.862731
> ratio mix/nre generic = 1.52262
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > ratio(ratio) generic/cocktail = 1.76489
>
>
> very close to the one used by Alessio (1.74).
>
>
> These are the fits
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/plots.eps
>
>
> The quality of the fits looks reasonable.
>
> Varying the cut on the purity (as a sanity/crosscheck) the result is
> stable:
>
> intpur>.2 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.76489
> intpur>.3 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.7804
> intpur>.4 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.82348
> intpur>.5 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.81961
> intpur>.6 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.74887
> intpur>.7 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.71669
> intpur>.8 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.69702
>
>
> Alessio will show the fit results for each Mx bin in the weights
> calculation.
>
>
> Daniele
>
>
