Hello Henning, > If I look at our plot 11 I count 16 pseudoexperiments for every cut in P*. I guess I was mistified by the number of degrees of freedom changing but this is probably due to the low stat in the bins thanks ric > > Concering the error: > If we exploit the correlation between the different P* cuts we get a > significant improvement on the error on the error and the accuracy we > reach is sufficient for our analysis. > > In case you go ahead with a toy MC we'd certainly be interested to use > this as well and have a look at the outcome of this. However, splitting > the available MC into subsamples should be a straightforward test to do > and should still give you a resonable accuracy on the error ( ~20%). > > Regards, > > Henning > > > > On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Riccardo Faccini wrote: > > > Hello folks, > > this is just a follow-up of the discussion with Oliver today, I just > > wanted to quantify the issues and be sure I reach the right conclusion. > > > > We only have ~7 times the data of cocktail MC taking into account all > > possible available MC. Oliver makes 15 samples, but they are equivalent to > > 25 fb-1 and therefore the error is bigger on them. > > > > As figure 11 of Oliver's BAD shows the relative error on sigma for the > > 25fb-1 samples is ~17% so that if one were to do things of the right size > > the level at which we are able to test our error is 24% [Oliver says he > > can exploit the correlations among P* bins and do a bit better] > > > > This is unfortunately not enough, we would not have even caught the > > mistake we just found. We will have to try a toyMC... > > > > ciao > > Ric > > P.S. Oliver, in your plot 11 not all the histograms present all the 15 > > subsamples (the first one has 13, the second one 12 etc etc ...). Can you > > explain this? > > > > >