 |
 |
I obviously forgot the charged track multiplicity: Lepton cut only: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a4020.eps.gz All cuts: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a4000.eps.gz Cheers, --U. > > Hoi, > > the trk killing was implemented with the Daniele's tables, contained > in IslBrecoilUser/tablechg.dat, giving the ratio data/MC. > > In momentum intervals with an 'efficiency' larger than 1, tracks were > killed in data. In the following, the usual plots are inverted: what > is labelled as data is actually generic MC, and the histograms show > the killed and default data distributions. > > The track momentum spectrum is well reproduced by this procedure on > the lepton-cut only sample: > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a1600.eps.gz > > There are residual differences (and fluctuations in data) after all > cuts: > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a1610.eps.gz > > This is a bit surprising, I'd have thought that the tables are after > all cuts. > > The effects of trk killing are clearly visible in the (fitted and > reco) MX distribution, which is systematically shifted to lower > values: > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a2420.eps.gz > > The agreement between data and MC is better for the unkilled version. > > The charged Trk multiplicity is affected, especially after the lepton > cut: > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a4300.eps.gz > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/talks/070202/trkkill-a4320.eps.gz > > The default setup shows better agreement. > > Note: These plots are a bit different from the BAD, this is due to the > fact that the BAD plots were made with the veryTight muon selector and > these here with tight. > > So, technically, I think there no obvious problem with the TrkKilling. > > The fits give: > > Default: BRBR = 0.0167335 +- 0.00446966(stat) +- 0.00127934(MC stat) > TrkKill: BRBR = 0.0218932 +- 0.00459749(stat) +- 0.00124435(MC stat) > > This is a difference of 31%. Given the level of disagreement in the > above distributions, I would not say that it's a good estimate for a > systematic. More thinking is required. > > > Cheers, > --U. > >