 |
 |
Hi all, I've crosschecked the numbers from Daniele and tried to vary the scaling factor btw: 1.69 -- 1.82 The maximum variation of the central value was < 0.8% in both cases. I'll provide soon the mes fits for each bin, togheter with the result of weights calculated on generic. Alessio > Hi all, > > today, at the meeting, we discussed about the scaling factor > between generic and cocktail MC for the ratio > > lumi(hybrid)/lumi(pure non resonant) > > used in the weights calculation and the goodness of the mes fits. I > applied a loose cut on the purity (intpur>.2) > > > These are the numbers: > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > nmix(cockMC) = 10366.3 +- 139.558 > nnre(cockMC) = 12015.7 +- 148.974 > nmix(geneMC) = 9764.37 +- 156.282 > nnre(geneMC) = 6412.87 +- 127.174 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ratio mix/nre cocktail = 0.862731 > ratio mix/nre generic = 1.52262 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ---> ratio(ratio) generic/cocktail = 1.76489 > > > very close to the one used by Alessio (1.74). > > > These are the fits > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~daniele/vub/plots.eps > > > The quality of the fits looks reasonable. > > Varying the cut on the purity (as a sanity/crosscheck) the result is > stable: > > intpur>.2 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.76489 > intpur>.3 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.7804 > intpur>.4 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.82348 > intpur>.5 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.81961 > intpur>.6 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.74887 > intpur>.7 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.71669 > intpur>.8 ratio(ratio) cocktail/generic = 1.69702 > > > Alessio will show the fit results for each Mx bin in the weights > calculation. > > > Daniele > >