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  July 2006

VUB-RECOIL July 2006

Subject:

Comparisons

From:

Concezio Bozzi <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

12 Jul 2006 18:36:26 +0200Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:36:26 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (130 lines)

Hi, 

due to further implementations/testings, we are afraid we cannot provide
a tag for VVF by today. However, we got some interesting results by
running some Mx fits with the following configurations: 

(1) fix the S/peakingBG ratio after applying all cuts: in data by using
the double ratio technique, in MC by fitting separately truth-matched
for S and non-truth-matched events for peakingBG, see 

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/scra/Ibutest_fixed_usecb/

(2) fix the S/peakingBG ratio in data after applying all cuts as in (1),
take all MC quantities (Mx shapes, efficiencies) by simply counting
events surviving the cuts in truth-matched events, see

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/scra/Ibutest_fixed_count/

If our mES fits are OK, the results obtained in (2) should be compatible
with the results obtained in (1). For what the MC shapes are concerned,
you will find comparisons in 

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/comp_vcboth.eps (vcb+other)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/comp_vubin.eps (vubIN)
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/comp_vubout.eps (VubOUT)

where the points refer to (1), the histograms to (2) and the four plots
are: (top left) chargedB, (top right) neutralB opposite flavor, (bottom
left) neutralB same flavor, (bottom right) sum of the previous ones,
corrected for mixing and charged/neutralB ratio observed in data. 
The Mx distributions obtained with the two approaches are quite
compatible, and indeed the Mx fit on data gives

(1) 
Vub IN  fitted 1' bin = 415.428 +- 1.58277(stat MC) +- 30.8589(err fit)
Vub OUT fitted 1' bin = 41.1093 +- 2.86677(stat MC) +- 3.02161(err fit)
Vcb+Oth fitted 1' bin = 380.874 +- 10.1103(stat MC) +- 11.2604(err fit)

(2)
Vub IN  fitted 1' bin = 415.912 +- 8.34177(stat MC) +- 30.8209(err fit)
Vub OUT fitted 1' bin = 38.0393 +- 2.4665(stat MC) +- 2.85527(err fit)
Vcb+Oth fitted 1' bin = 383.46 +- 8.57534(stat MC) +- 11.0408(err fit)

The efficiencies however are a bit different:

(1) 
Eps_u =  0.440843 +- 0.00529543
Eps_u (mix corr)= 0.445315 +- 0.0053009
Eps_Cut = 0.729764 +- 0.00713367
Eps_PhSp = 0.491828 +- 0.000818
Eps_tot = 0.158227 +- 0.00246454


(2)
Eps_u =  0.408981 +- 0.00537718
Eps_u (mix corr)= 0.40782 +- 0.00537481
Eps_Cut = 0.88187 +- 0.00551991
Eps_PhSp = 0.491828 +- 0.000818
Eps_tot = 0.177387 +- 0.00259984

The last number which enters in the BRBR determination is the pstarfactor:

(1)
pstarfact           1.20276 +- 0.0290694

(2)
pstarfact           1.10181 +- 0.0155489


This counterbalances the different efficiencies, giving quite similar
results for BRBR: 

(1)
PartialBRBR = 0.0133692 +- 0.000993091(stat) +- 0.000418926(MC stat)
BRBR = 0.0271826 +- 0.00201918(stat) +- 0.000852973(MC stat)

(2)
PartialBRBR = 0.0131184 +- 0.00097213(stat) +- 0.000360179(MC stat)
BRBR = 0.0266727 +- 0.00197657(stat) +- 0.00073367(MC stat)

Conclusion: the bias on mES fits on MC obtained after determining the 
S/peakingBG ratio in matched/unmatched events after all cuts is small. 
There is however some bias on the mES fits on bigger samples, namely the 
ones used to compute the efficiencies and the pstarfactor, where we don't 
use matched/unmatched events (e.g. when we require lepton cuts). 
Therefore we propose to count matched events to compute all MC-related 
quantities. BTW, this avoids many mES fits and speeds up VVF quite a lot! 

(3) The above figures can also be compared with the results of VVF without 
applying any S/peakingBG constraint, as in our first attempts, see 

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/scra/Ibutest_nofixed/

Comparisons of Mx MC shapes for (2) and (3) are in 

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/comp_vcboth_nofix.eps
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/comp_vubin_nofix.eps
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/comp_vubout_nofix.eps

points are (3), histograms are (2). Difference are bigger in this case. 
The Mx fit, efficiencies, pstarfactor, BRBR for (3): 

(3)
Vub IN  fitted 1' bin = 494.356 +- 8.76092(stat MC) +- 64.6291(err fit)
Vub OUT fitted 1' bin = 44.0603 +- 4.46821(stat MC) +- 5.65902(err fit)
Vcb+Oth fitted 1' bin = 334.964 +- 16.6672(stat MC) +- 22.8977(err fit)

Eps_u =  0.440843 +- 0.00529543
Eps_u (mix corr)= 0.445315 +- 0.0053009
Eps_Cut = 0.834418 +- 0.00597102
Eps_PhSp = 0.491828 +- 0.000818
Eps_tot = 0.180918 +- 0.00254743

pstarfact           1.20276 +- 0.0290694

PartialBRBR = 0.0139138 +- 0.00181901(stat) +- 0.000577261(MC stat)
BRBR = 0.02829 +- 0.00369847(stat) +- 0.00117465(MC stat)

Note that the statistical error on the fitted Vub events, and therefore on 
PartialBRBR and BRBR are about a factor 2 worse than in (1) and (2). 
This is expected since we are performing mES fits where we determine 
simultaneously S, peakingBG and combinatorialBG without any further 
constraints. 

More news (and new VVF tag!) by tomorrow, 
Ciao, Antonio & Concezio. 



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