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  August 2007

VUB-RECOIL August 2007

Subject:

Data-MC (Dis)Agreement in Qtot

From:

Kerstin Tackmann <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

23 Aug 2007 15:37:18 -0700 (PDT)Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:37:18 -0700 (PDT)

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (34 lines)


Dear all,

as you probably saw, we are seeing some disagreement between data and MC 
in Qtot in the enriched sample. The plots can be found here
http://costard.lbl.gov/~kerstin/vubunf/ana32/dataMC/dataMC_KLcorr.html

along with the plots for other variables, also split up by (reco'd) B 
charge (and the effect seems to be present for both charged and neutral B.
We see an excess of events with total charge of +1 (and maybe some 
depletion of events with charge 0).

It seems to me that the same effect is present in the plots that are in 
BAD 1383 page 33 (although somewhat better hidden): This plot is 
normalized to the same area (mine has the different components normalized 
as they come out of the mX fit), but if you look at the bin for total 
charge +1, you cannot actually tell how many sigma it is off, the error 
bar is too small. If you multiply the chi2 by the number of bins,
1.5*9 = 13.5 and look at the agreement of the other bins, it does look
like this particular one has a big contribution to the chi2.

Has anyone looked at this more closely and tried to figure out where
this is coming from? Or if not that, if there is any impact on the 
analysis? If so, it would be great if you could point us to that!
I don't really have any explanation why we should see this, especially 
since it seems to be present in the enriched, but not the depleted sample,
so I wonder if this could be a huge fluctuation...

Thanks,
Kerstin



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