Message:
[
First
|
Previous
Next
Last
]
By Topic:
By Author:
Font:
Proportional Font
LISTSERV Archives
VUB-RECOIL Home
VUB-RECOIL April 2002
Subject:
Re: fit with multiplicity categories on new root files
From:
Oliver Buchmueller <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
29 Apr 2002 15:37:57 -0700 (PDT)Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (132 lines)
Hi Daniele, just a short question (sorry if you have already mentioned this before but I must have missed it) question see below: On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Daniele del Re wrote: > > > Hi all, > > these are the results of the fit with multiplicity categories on > the new root files. > > > MC cocktail: > ----------- > > - ratio(BR) = 0.0151 +- 0.0017 (was 0.0172 +- 0.0014 in the usual fit) > > * With three shapes fit > > - ratio(BR) = 0.0156 +- 0.0017 (was 0.0179 +- 0.0014 in the usual fit) ^ ^ Are the two BR results | | obtained from the same MC sample? If yes, what has caused the shift? > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/MCmulti/newMCshapech1ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/MCmulti/newMCshapech1ne2fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/MCmulti/newMCshapech2ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/MCmulti/newMCshapech2ne2fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/MCmulti/newMCshapech3ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/MCmulti/newMCshapech3ne2fitresults.eps > > > GENERIC: > ------- > > - ratio(BR) = 0.0122 +- 0.0031 (was 0.0145 +- 0.0026 in the usual fit) > > * With three shapes fit > > - ratio(BR) = 0.0131 +- 0.0031 (was 0.0143 +- 0.0023 in the usual fit) > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/ > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/genemulti/newgeneshapech1ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/genemulti/newgeneshapech1ne2fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/genemulti/newgeneshapech2ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/genemulti/newgeneshapech2ne2fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/genemulti/newgeneshapech3ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/genemulti/newgeneshapech3ne2fitresults.eps > > In general the relative error increases of about 30%. The fit has a nice > behaviour even in the generic MC that has a pretty different signal MC > (due to different MC). > > > DATA: > ----- > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/datamulti/newdatach1ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/datamulti/newdatach1ne2fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/datamulti/newdatach2ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/datamulti/newdatach2ne2fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/datamulti/newdatach3ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/datamulti/newdatach3ne2fitresults.eps > > > > --------- > > These are the fit results on the depleted sample: > > (first two categories are not there since at least one charged particle is > needed) > > MC cocktail: > ----------- > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplMCmulti/newdeplMCshapech2ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplMCmulti/newdeplMCshapech2ne2fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplMCmulti/newdeplMCshapech3ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplMCmulti/newdeplMCshapech3ne2fitresults.eps > > > GENERIC: > ------- > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplgenemulti/newdeplgeneshapech2ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplgenemulti/newdeplgeneshapech2ne2fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplgenemulti/newdeplgeneshapech3ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplgenemulti/newdeplgeneshapech3ne2fitresults.eps > > > DATA: > ----- > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/depldatamulti/newdepldatashapech2ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/depldatamulti/newdepldatashapech2ne2fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/depldatamulti/newdepldatashapech3ne1fitresults.eps > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/depldatamulti/newdepldatashapech3ne2fitresults.eps > > > > As a general comment on data I can say that looking at the fits on > data (both enriched and depleted but especially in the depleted) > you can notice that the results in the categories with 0 neutrals (ch*ne1) > are not bad while the distributions with one or more neutrals (ch*ne2) are > pretty different from MC. Then the problem should be in the neutral > reconstruction. > > > > Daniele > >
Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink
Advanced Options
Log In
Get Password
Search Archives
Subscribe or Unsubscribe
ATOM RSS1 RSS2
LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU