Hi Virginia and Concezio,

thanks. Does this imply that you have not done the binning study for the
1D mx fits yet?

All, who did this study for the analysis described in BAD 540 and which
values should be used for this?

Thanks,
Kerstin


On Tue, 4 May 2004, Concezio Bozzi wrote:

> Hi Kerstin,
> in the 2D fit we varied the mx binning like this (MXBIN is the cut in Mx):
>
> 0,MXBIN,2.2,2.8,5 (default)
>
> 0,MXBIN,2.2,2.5,5 (move down 4th bin)
>
> Variable bins: define
> x_1 = ((5. - MXBIN)/3.) + MXBIN;
> x_2 = ((5. - MXBIN)/3.*2.) + MXBIN;
> binning is: {0,MXBIN,x_1,x_2,5.};
>
> The associated (absolute) error on BRBR is less than 0.002.
>
> Virginia and Concezio.
>
> Kerstin Tackmann wrote:
>
> >Hi Concezio and Virginia,
> >
> >thanks. Actually it is most interesting to us how you varied the mx
> >binning in the 1D fits since this is what we need to do as well. Could you
> >point to to what you did there?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Kerstin
> >
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 4 May 2004, Concezio Bozzi wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi Kerstin,
> >>we don't know how the binning was varied in BAD540 for systematic studies.
> >>In our 2D fits, we are using 4x4 bins in (mx,q2) such that the first mx
> >>bin goes from 0 to the mx cut, and the last q2 bin goes from the q2 cut
> >>to 26. We have investigated some different possibilities for the q2
> >>binning. Our default is to divide the q2 range between 0 and the q2 cut
> >>in 3 equal-size bins, but this gives unstable results when the q2 cut is
> >>lower than, say, 5. We therefore used constant q2 bins evenly
> >>distributed (0,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,26), with more stable results at low q2
> >>cuts. For higher q2 cuts, the two sets of q2 binnings give almost the
> >>same results.
> >>We also varied the mx binning with very small variations of the results.
> >>Cheers, Concezio and Virginia.
> >>
> >>Kerstin Tackmann wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi all,
> >>>
> >>>we have a question concerning the uncertainty from binning effects on the
> >>>mX spectrum fits. In BAD 540 you say that you varied the bin sizes in a
> >>>wide range and that you increased the number of bins. Is there some more
> >>>explixit information on the actual binnings you used for the estimation of
> >>>this uncertainty?
> >>>Virginia and Concezio, are you going to use the values as they were used
> >>>for BAD 540?
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Kerstin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>