 |
 |
I mean the mc signal shape. The backgroud subtracted plots do not have to be too different (you are not playing with the background shape). Can you show the signal mc shape and quote the signal efficiency too? Daniele On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Kerstin Tackmann wrote: > > > I guess signal mX shape means the background subtracted mX? It actually > does not look completely screwed up. I put a > plot here: > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~kerstin/subdatachop_onevubcomp.eps > > All histos are subdatachop histos (bkgd subtracted data) > black - default > red - feeding only nonres to VirFit > blue - feeding only hybrid to VirFit > > For what reason should (or could) it be screwed up by using only one type > of Vub MC? > > Kerstin > > > > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Daniele del Re wrote: > > > > > fixing deltaa and deltam to 0 does not imply that the fit is not trying > > to mix to components. > > > > I had a quick look at the VirFit and it seems to me that it does not allow > > for just one vub component (instead of two, resonant and non resonant). > > Virginia or Alessio, could you confirm this? If this is the case, the > > signal mx shape should be completely screwed up. Kerstin, are you seeing > > this effect? > > > > Daniele > > > > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Kerstin Tackmann wrote: > > > > > > > > Fermi reweighting was switched off, we have DELTAMB = DELTAA = 0 (I > > > checked the logfiles again.) The only thing that was change from the usual > > > fit is that either the nonres or the hybrid just got not read in. > > > > > > Kerstin > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Daniele del Re wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > are you sure that you switched off the fermi reweighting in performin the > > > > fit with hybrid and nonres? > > > > > > > > Daniele > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > this concerns the hadronization error. > > > > > > > > > > Reading the BAD (ch. 7.11.3) I understand that to evaluate the error due > > > > > to uncertainties in the hadronization model, you do the fit once using > > > > > only nonresonant and once using only hybrid model MC for the Vub MC. You > > > > > find a difference of 3.0% there between the final results (I assume with > > > > > final result you mean BRBR, correct?). > > > > > > > > > > If I go through the fit one time using only the nonres MC and one time > > > > > only using the mix MC, I find really different results for BRBR (using > > > > > the default binning, i.e. one bin until the cut), though: > > > > > > > > > > with only nonres: > > > > > BRBR 0.032563 0.0033704 0.00145874 > > > > > > > > > > with only hybrid: > > > > > BRBR 0.0132341 0.001452 0.000574687 > > > > > > > > > > using the default mixture: > > > > > BRBR 0.0219666 0.00234676 0.000873771 > > > > > > > > > > This does not at all look like a 3.0% error. Did I misinterprete the > > > > > description? Did you change anything else than just using only one type > > > > > (nre,mix) for the Vub MC? Or maybe I misunderstood something else? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Kerstin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >