Here are the commands which I used to run the MC fits in July.
Perhaps running them again by using Wolfgang's new tag would solve the
problem which I had back then. Note also that the same S/P ratios
(MCfit.txt), determined on the entire sample, were used also for fits on
separate subsamples, so one could attempt to determine different
correction ratios for different subsamples to see if this improves the
results.
Ciao, Concezio.
Run 1-4:
./subVirFit.pl -que kanga -mpar mesparsetting_thoMC.txt -fitmc -Sun -cm
CM2 -debug -novarfit -small -tmodel -notunbinmes=3 -
fixSBratio MCfit.txt -rew 2 -countmc -flag MCmXSunfixfit
Run1+2:
./subVirFit.pl -que kanga -mpar mesparsetting_thoMC.txt -fitmc -Run12
-Sun -cm CM2 -debug -novarfit -small -tmodel -notunbin
mes=3 -fixSBratio MCfit.txt -rew 2 -countmc -flag MCmXSunfixfitR12
Run3:
./subVirFit.pl -que kanga -mpar mesparsetting_thoMC.txt -fitmc -Run3
-Sun -cm CM2 -debug -novarfit -small -tmodel -notunbinm
es=3 -fixSBratio MCfit.txt -rew 2 -countmc -flag MCmXSunfixfitR3
Run1-4:
./subVirFit.pl -que kanga -mpar mesparsetting_thoMC.txt -fitmc -Run4
-Sun -cm CM2 -debug -novarfit -small -tmodel -notunbinm
es=3 -fixSBratio MCfit.txt -rew 2 -countmc -flag MCmXSunfixfitR4
Concezio Bozzi wrote:
> Just as a stupid cross-check I run the MC fit on Run1+2 and Run4
> separately. I remind you that I am taking the same events as both data
> and MC, and not applying any reweighting at all.
>
> Generation value: 0.0198
>
> Run1+2 fit: 0.0227747 +- 0.00140784(stat) +- 0.00117712(MC stat)
> Run3 fit: 0.0201367 +- 0.00170562(stat) +- 0.00155887(MC stat)
> Run4 fit: 0.020348 +- 0.000950046(stat) +- 0.000755165(MC stat)
> Run1-4 fit: 0.0210372 +- 0.00072623(stat) +- 0.000590931(MC stat)
>
> It seems that the MC fit is OK for Run4, Run3 and not for Run1+2, and
> consequently for Run1-4!
> Results in
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/scra/IbuMCmXSunfixfitR12/ (Run1+2)
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/scra/IbuMCmXSunfixfitR3/ (Run3)
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/scra/IbuMCmXSunfixfitR4/ (Run4)
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~bozzi/scra/IbuMCmXSunfixfit/ (Run1-4)
>
>
> The discrepancy is mainly due to the number of fitted Vub events in the
> 1st bin:
>
> Run1+2: gen. 591, fit 687.972 +- 30.0696(stat MC) +- 42.5277(err fit)
> Run3: gen. 289, fit 303.269 +- 19.4599(stat MC) +- 25.6875(err fit)
> Run4: gen. 1471, fit 1515.57 +- 42.7063(stat MC) +- 70.7618(err fit)
> Run1-4: gen. 2352, fit 2521.15 +- 55.9467(stat MC) +- 87.033(err fit)
>
> What might be wrong? The only reason which might explain this behaviour
> is (again...) that S/peakingBG might be different for different run
> periods whereas I am using the values computed on the entire sample,
> fitted with a 1st order polynomial. But, are there any reasons why
> S/peakingBG should be substantially different for different run periods?
> I quickly investigated this by computing the S/peakingBG which comes out
> from a (argus+ccb+signal) fit on the entire mx sample on charged B
> events, getting:
>
> S/peakingBG:
> Run1+2: 3.85 +/- 1.38
> Run3: 5.09 +/- 1.32
> Run4: 3.95 +/- 0.35
> Run1-4: 4.00 +/- 0.28
>
> which are compatible within errors, and in any case going in the wrong
> direction for what the yields are concerned. Anything else?
> Concezio.
>
>
|