Hello!
If I look at our plot 11 I count 16 pseudoexperiments for every cut in P*.
Concering the error:
If we exploit the correlation between the different P* cuts we get a
significant improvement on the error on the error and the accuracy we
reach is sufficient for our analysis.
In case you go ahead with a toy MC we'd certainly be interested to use
this as well and have a look at the outcome of this. However, splitting
the available MC into subsamples should be a straightforward test to do
and should still give you a resonable accuracy on the error ( ~20%).
Regards,
Henning
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Riccardo Faccini wrote:
> Hello folks,
> this is just a follow-up of the discussion with Oliver today, I just
> wanted to quantify the issues and be sure I reach the right conclusion.
>
> We only have ~7 times the data of cocktail MC taking into account all
> possible available MC. Oliver makes 15 samples, but they are equivalent to
> 25 fb-1 and therefore the error is bigger on them.
>
> As figure 11 of Oliver's BAD shows the relative error on sigma for the
> 25fb-1 samples is ~17% so that if one were to do things of the right size
> the level at which we are able to test our error is 24% [Oliver says he
> can exploit the correlations among P* bins and do a bit better]
>
> This is unfortunately not enough, we would not have even caught the
> mistake we just found. We will have to try a toyMC...
>
> ciao
> Ric
> P.S. Oliver, in your plot 11 not all the histograms present all the 15
> subsamples (the first one has 13, the second one 12 etc etc ...). Can you
> explain this?
>
|