Hi Wolfgang,
> first I have some comments to your numbers, that you are not really
> comparing the correct things, but them I have some other numbers to
> confirm your findings.
>
> So, you can not take the numbers of events in the BSemiExcl data skim to
> calculate any ratios. The contain all data (well, mostly Bs but anyway).
> You have to run them through BbkLumi and use the luminosity or number of
> BB events, which is the same by a constant factor.
>
> And you are neglecting Run3, which might or might not affect the whole
> thing. Anyway, here are the numbers run by run:
Yes, I know, my numbers weren't meant to be more than a crude check.
Thanks for getting the correct ones to look at!
>
>
> generic:
>
> 1235(all/BsemiExcl) 1237(all/BSemiExcl) total ratio 1235/1237
>
> run1: 24246000 1667945 28762000 1814045 53008000 0.8429
> run2: 119356000 8955315 120299826 7443054 239655826 0.9921
> run3: 67974000 4742604 61310000 3914416 129284000 1.1087
> run4: 332944433 27934200 336130399 24157489 669074832 0.9905
>
> data: lumi B-counting AllEvents BSemiExcl
>
> run1: 19458.963 21181864 268587495 3982175
> run2: 60266.741 66441247 866976254 12802202
> run3: 31061.051 34076579 447426127 6688118
> run4: 99762.620 110107681 1512711646 23104133
>
>
> sum generic/2/data: (lumi)
>
> run1: 1.362
> run2: 1.987
> run3: 2.081
> run4: 3.353
>
> So, there are two things. There is a minor dependency in the ratio
> charged/neutrals by run period (~15%). There is a strong dependency
> in the ratio generic/data by run period.
>
> So, we should weight by different run period. It is possible to
> distinguish between run123 and run4 using the run number. I will see if
> this is also possible for run1, run2 and run3.
>
> How about reweighting between charged and neutral Bs? Could/will be more
> difficult. ;-)
As Concezio said, VVF is already supposed to do this. We still have to
look at the different numbers we are currently using for vub and vcb events,
though . We have talked about this a while ago and this should be
done once the mES fits are finalized, I think.
Cheers,
Kerstin
> Cheers,
>
> Wolfgang
>
> Kerstin Tackmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > here are some more numbers along these lines...
> >
> > I had a closer look at the number of events in the generic MC we are
> > using.
> >
> > In the reduced ntuples (without any cuts, fits, ...) we have the following
> > numbers of entries in the TTree:
> > Run1+2 448821
> > Run4 1196783
> >
> > the ratio of these is 2.667
> >
> > looking at Roberto's tcl files, I find these numbers (the numbers of
> > events we run over in production):
> > Run1-2 19880359
> > Run4 52091689
> >
> > and the ratio is 2.620.
> >
> > This looks to me as if our ratio of generic MC between SP5 and SP6 simply
> > does not match the ratio of luminosities in the corresponding runs in
> > data. I thought we are supposed to use SP5 and SP6 so that it corresponds
> > to the lumi ratios....
> >
> > in data I see in the tcl files
> > Run1+2 16784377
> > Run4 23104133
> >
> > and the ratio is 1.377.
> >
> >
> > Are we not using all of the generic SP5? Or do we somehow use extra SP6?
> > How did this come about? Could someone (Roberto, Wolfgang, ?) please
> > clarify this?
> >
> > Kerstin
> >
> >
> >
> >> The interesting point is that the SP6/SP5 yield is different from
> >> the ratio of Run4/Run1+2 luminosities, take e.g. your Vcb 1'bin numbers:
> >>
> >> SP6/SP5 = 1327.69/482.67 = 2.75
> >> Run4/Run1+2 = 100ifb/80ifb = 1.25
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wolfgang Menges
> Queen Mary, University of London SLAC, MS 35
> Mile End Road 2575 Sand Hill Road
> London, E1 4NS, UK Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA
> +44 20 7882 3753 ++1 650 926 8503
> [log in to unmask]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
|
