Sorry, it was late yesterday night.
I was already one step ahead.

Cheers,
Heiko

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Kerstin Tackmann wrote:

> 
> Hi Heiko,
> 
> > I have not read the details of your posting yet.
> > There is seomthing where we might have an inconsistency:
> > I assume you are using the ratio other/vcb from the fit
> > on data concezio has performed, right?
> No, actually. I am performing non-unfolded 3-parameter fits
> separately for Run1+2 with SP5 and Run4 with SP6. Wasn't
> this what we talked about?
> 
> > If so, one needs to determine this ratio separately for
> > the SP5 and Sp6 period first, right?
> That is what I did here effectively. I thought this is what
> we talked about this morning. Would you like me to use these
> numbers and perform 1-bin-unfolded fits on the two samples
> as well?
> 
> Cheers,
> Kerstin
> 
> 
> > > here are the results from the tests concerning the differences in the D**
> > > modeling we talked about this morning. This is done with Concezio's recent
> > > VVF tag and the correction factors are picked up from
> > > corrratiosigpeakmx_newdatadepl.txt. The D** are moved into the "other"
> > > component (-fitdss 1).
> > >
> > > Please find the plots here:
> > > http://costard.lbl.gov/~kerstin/vubunf/testdss_Run12fitresults.eps
> > > http://costard.lbl.gov/~kerstin/vubunf/testdss_Run4fitresults.eps
> > >
> > > By eye, the fits do look different and here are some numbers:
> > >
> > > **Fit on Run 1+2, SP5:
> > > chi2/ndof = 1.64116 (for 7 dof)
> > > ratio other/vcb = 0.296045 / 0.287339 = 1.03 +- 0.17
> > > (with errors:
> > > Vcb comp = 0.287339 +- 0.0183957
> > > Oth comp = 0.296045 +- 0.0442523)
> > >
> > > **Fit on Run 4, SP6:
> > > chi2/ndof = 1.90748 (for 7 dof)
> > > ratio other/vcb = 0.117799 / 0.141224 = 0.83 +- 0.13
> > > (with errors:
> > > Vcb comp = 0.141224 +- 0.00785652
> > > Oth comp = 0.117799 +- 0.0174853)
> > >
> > > where vcb is D and D*, other is D** and the non-sl bkgd.
> > >
> > > The differences might or might not be from the D** - roughly, in SP6 we
> > > would think that the D** should smear down to smaller masses (since
> > > some widths are larger and the minimum masses, with which D** can be
> > > produced can be lower). We subtract less "other" and still the data
> > > spectrum has fewer entries in the bins around 2GeV (and the D** do
> > > smear this far down).
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is another observation from these fits:
> > >
> > > Run 1+2, SP5, numbers of events in the first mX bin:
> > > Data 1' bin = 393.016 +- 26.1089
> > > Vub 1' bin = 1809.31 +- 45.3825
> > > Vcb 1' bin = 482.67 +- 22.7482
> > > Oth 1' bin = 73.6857 +- 9.62637
> > >
> > > Run 4, SP6, numbers of events in the first mX bin:
> > > Data 1' bin = 436.967 +- 27.2767
> > > Vub 1' bin = 1528.4 +- 41.7351
> > > Vcb 1' bin = 1327.69 +- 37.7632
> > > Oth 1' bin = 186.534 +- 14.9827
> > >
> > > after the mES fit... compare the number of data events (quite similar)
> > > and the number of Vcb events (quite different). As far as I know there is
> > > no SP5/SP6 weight on the generic MC. In the case that we think
> > > efficiencies might be sensitive to the run period, this looks like a
> > > potential problem, doesn't it? And taking Run 3 into account, this looks
> > > even worse. I am confused - I thought we were supposed to have SP5 and SP6
> > > roughly in the ratio of Run1-3 to Run4. And if this is true before any
> > > cuts and bkgd subtraction, it probably should not be vastly different
> > > afterwards.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Kerstin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>