Print

Print



Hi Daniele,

just a short question (sorry if you have already mentioned this before
but I must have missed it)

question see below:


On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Daniele del Re wrote:

>
>
> Hi all,
>
>  these are the results of the fit with multiplicity categories on
> the new root files.
>
>
> MC cocktail:
> -----------
>
> -  ratio(BR) = 0.0151 +- 0.0017  (was 0.0172 +- 0.0014 in the usual fit)
>
> *  With three shapes fit
>
> -  ratio(BR) = 0.0156 +- 0.0017  (was 0.0179 +- 0.0014 in the usual fit)


                        ^                      ^
Are the two BR results  |                      |
obtained from the same MC sample?
If yes, what has caused the shift?



>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/MCmulti/newMCshapech1ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/MCmulti/newMCshapech1ne2fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/MCmulti/newMCshapech2ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/MCmulti/newMCshapech2ne2fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/MCmulti/newMCshapech3ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/MCmulti/newMCshapech3ne2fitresults.eps
>
>
> GENERIC:
> -------
>
> -  ratio(BR) = 0.0122 +- 0.0031  (was 0.0145 +- 0.0026 in the usual fit)
>
> *  With three shapes fit
>
> -  ratio(BR) = 0.0131 +- 0.0031  (was 0.0143 +- 0.0023 in the usual fit)
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/genemulti/newgeneshapech1ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/genemulti/newgeneshapech1ne2fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/genemulti/newgeneshapech2ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/genemulti/newgeneshapech2ne2fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/genemulti/newgeneshapech3ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/genemulti/newgeneshapech3ne2fitresults.eps
>
> In general the relative error increases of about 30%. The fit has a nice
> behaviour even in the generic MC that has a pretty different signal MC
> (due to different MC).
>
>
> DATA:
> -----
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/datamulti/newdatach1ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/datamulti/newdatach1ne2fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/datamulti/newdatach2ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/datamulti/newdatach2ne2fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/datamulti/newdatach3ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/datamulti/newdatach3ne2fitresults.eps
>
>
>
> ---------
>
> These are the fit results on the depleted sample:
>
> (first two categories are not there since at least one charged particle is
> needed)
>
> MC cocktail:
> -----------
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplMCmulti/newdeplMCshapech2ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplMCmulti/newdeplMCshapech2ne2fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplMCmulti/newdeplMCshapech3ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplMCmulti/newdeplMCshapech3ne2fitresults.eps
>
>
> GENERIC:
> -------
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplgenemulti/newdeplgeneshapech2ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplgenemulti/newdeplgeneshapech2ne2fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplgenemulti/newdeplgeneshapech3ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/deplgenemulti/newdeplgeneshapech3ne2fitresults.eps
>
>
> DATA:
> -----
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/depldatamulti/newdepldatashapech2ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/depldatamulti/newdepldatashapech2ne2fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/depldatamulti/newdepldatashapech3ne1fitresults.eps
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/depldatamulti/newdepldatashapech3ne2fitresults.eps
>
>
>
> As a general comment on data I can say that looking at the fits on
> data (both enriched and depleted but especially in the depleted)
> you can notice that the results in the categories with 0 neutrals (ch*ne1)
> are not bad while the distributions with one or more neutrals (ch*ne2) are
> pretty different from MC. Then the problem should be in the neutral
> reconstruction.
>
>
>
> Daniele
>
>