LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for VUB-RECOIL Archives


VUB-RECOIL Archives

VUB-RECOIL Archives


VUB-RECOIL@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

VUB-RECOIL Home

VUB-RECOIL Home

VUB-RECOIL  May 2002

VUB-RECOIL May 2002

Subject:

news from data-mc mc-mc comparisons

From:

Daniele del Re <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

20 May 2002 02:58:55 -0700 (PDT)Mon, 20 May 2002 02:58:55 -0700 (PDT)

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (101 lines)


Hi all,

 most of the causes of the disagreements data-MC and MC-MC are
now better understood.

 I updated the page:

  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/complots/comp.html

 and I included:

 * genericMC-cocktailMC comparison in many configurations

 * data-genericMC with different breco cuts


 The coclusion are pretty exciting.



 GENERIC-COCKTAIL comparison:

 1) using SP4 cocktail (genericMC is mainly SP4) the comparison improves

 2) a cut on the integrated purity (for instance at 60%) improves the
comparison both for the shape and for the efficiency. Look for instance at
qtot distributions.

 3) differences in the qtot are due to small difference in the total
number of charged tracks. If we take only Bch the differences are gone.


 I can say that generic and cocktail ARE THE SAME but

 - SP3 and SP4 are different
 - different breco purities imply different efficiency
 - the fraction of Bch has to be the same



 DATA-GENERIC comparison:

 1) better comparison if we cut on the purity (both integrated and single
mode purities) especially for the efficiency as in generic-cocktail
comparison

 2) break down in B0-Bch helps

 3) B0's look perfect!!!! Bch's have good Mxhadfit but very bad mnu**2,
Qtot and Mxhadfit!!!!!

 4) mnu**2 for Bch and B0 are completely different on MC. On data the
distributions seem to be pretty similar.



 Final conlusions and action items:
 ----------------------------------

 Cocktail-generic comparison problem seems to be gone but we need SIMILAR
PURITY and ratio N(Bch)/N(B0)

 Then, in principle, WE CANNOT USE COCKTAILMC since it does not contain
low purity modes (especially bias in the efficiency)

 B0's are ok on data-genericMC comparison! Strange Bch distributions on
the MC.


 Then:

 a) we should use generic MC to model the background with a cut on the
purity. I propose a cut on the single mode purity (>10%) to remove the
superblock 4 present in genric MC. The use of the cocktail imply a
correction in order to take care of the low purity modes not present in
it.

 b) we should perform a careful comparison of the Breco modes between data
and generic MC and weight properly. The Luigi's work goes in this
direction.

 c) since the statistic of the generic MC is similar to the data one we
will introduces a large error due to MC statistics. S/B is 1/2 and then
the additional error will be 1.4 times the original one. With a cut Mx<1.5
GeV the ratio S/B goes down ot ~1/1. We should consider this change in the
Mx cut.

 d) we have to understand why some variables for Bch are so different.
Actually the kinematic fit seems to correct part of the disagreement.


 Daniele







Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2010
December 2009
August 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager

Privacy Notice, Security Notice and Terms of Use