 |
 |
Ok, I was wondering why it should be screwed up. Signal MC looks like this: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~kerstin/subdatachop_onevubcomp.eps again: black - default red - feeding only nonres to VirFit blue - feeding only hybrid to VirFit So I think this looks how one would have guessed. These are the signal efficiencies: *** default EFFICIENCY Vub Vub total MC (lepton cut) = 7436.22 Vub MC (all cuts) = 2465.72 Vub MC (all cuts + Chop cut) = 1850.39 Vub gene total MC (lepton cut) = 7436.22 Vub gene MC (all cuts) = 2386.54 Eps_u = 0.320935 +- 0.00541363 Eps_Cut = 0.775344 +- 0.00854322 Eps_tot = 0.248835 +- 0.00501357 *** only nonres EFFICIENCY Vub Vub total MC (lepton cut) = 4930.11 Vub MC (all cuts) = 1367.92 Vub MC (all cuts + Chop cut) = 854.195 Vub gene total MC (lepton cut) = 4930.11 Vub gene MC (all cuts) = 1326.56 Eps_u = 0.269073 +- 0.00631602 Eps_Cut = 0.643919 +- 0.013147 Eps_tot = 0.173261 +- 0.00539021 *** only hybrid EFFICIENCY Vub Vub total MC (lepton cut) = 2505.5 Vub MC (all cuts) = 1110.63 Vub MC (all cuts + Chop cut) = 1007.65 Vub gene total MC (lepton cut) = 2505.5 Vub gene MC (all cuts) = 1061.75 Eps_u = 0.423766 +- 0.00987223 Eps_Cut = 0.949051 +- 0.00674841 Eps_tot = 0.402175 +- 0.00979597 Kerstin On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Daniele del Re wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >