I obviously forgot the charged track multiplicity:
Lepton cut only:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a4020.eps.gz
All cuts:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a4000.eps.gz
Cheers,
--U.
>
> Hoi,
>
> the trk killing was implemented with the Daniele's tables, contained
> in IslBrecoilUser/tablechg.dat, giving the ratio data/MC.
>
> In momentum intervals with an 'efficiency' larger than 1, tracks were
> killed in data. In the following, the usual plots are inverted: what
> is labelled as data is actually generic MC, and the histograms show
> the killed and default data distributions.
>
> The track momentum spectrum is well reproduced by this procedure on
> the lepton-cut only sample:
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a1600.eps.gz
>
> There are residual differences (and fluctuations in data) after all
> cuts:
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a1610.eps.gz
>
> This is a bit surprising, I'd have thought that the tables are after
> all cuts.
>
> The effects of trk killing are clearly visible in the (fitted and
> reco) MX distribution, which is systematically shifted to lower
> values:
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a2420.eps.gz
>
> The agreement between data and MC is better for the unkilled version.
>
> The charged Trk multiplicity is affected, especially after the lepton
> cut:
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a4300.eps.gz
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a4320.eps.gz
>
> The default setup shows better agreement.
>
> Note: These plots are a bit different from the BAD, this is due to the
> fact that the BAD plots were made with the veryTight muon selector and
> these here with tight.
>
> So, technically, I think there no obvious problem with the TrkKilling.
>
> The fits give:
>
> Default: BRBR = 0.0167335 +- 0.00446966(stat) +- 0.00127934(MC stat)
> TrkKill: BRBR = 0.0218932 +- 0.00459749(stat) +- 0.00124435(MC stat)
>
> This is a difference of 31%. Given the level of disagreement in the
> above distributions, I would not say that it's a good estimate for a
> systematic. More thinking is required.
>
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>
>
|