 |
 |
Hi, I did few checks on the disagreement in the signal MC efficiency observed by Roberto (as output of the fitter). I used the following trees: old prod: /nfs/farm/babar/recoil/Vub_incl/root/anaQA-r00/csx-vubnre.root new prod: files in /u/br/sacco/work2/test-21/workdir/2575/root/*root Just by counting I get: ---------- after lepton cut (i.e. "vub&&mes>5.27&&intpur>.5&&pcms>1&&lcharge+brecoflav==0" ) N(b0) old = 685 N(b0) new = 1647 N(bch) old = 1140 N(bch) new = 2391 ---------- after all cuts (i.e. "vub&&mes>5.27&&intpur>.5&&mm2<.5&&pcms>1&&mxhadfit>0&&mxhadfit<5.&& brecocharge+xcharge==0&&lcharge+brecoflav==0&& (wdeltam<-3.||brecocharge!=0)" ) N(b0) old = 209 N(b0) new = 469 N(bch) old = 440 N(bch) new = 889 (I had to put brecocharge+xcharge+lcharge==0 for the new production, I thought this was fixed...) Then the efficiency is eps_ub0(old) = 0.305 eps_ub0(new) = 0.285 eps_ubch(old) = 0.386 eps_ubch(new) = 0.372 If I add the mx cut (mxhadfit<1.55) eps_totb0(old) = 0.213 eps_totb0(new) = 0.211 eps_totbch(old) = 0.287 eps_totbch(new) = 0.265 Conclusions: - the efficiencies for CM1 and CM2 are pretty consistent - the problem is not in the production but in the fit machinery - the efficiencies I get are very different from the ones shown by Virginia ( http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~azzolini/Mxhad-Mxhadfit.txt table 1 in the crosschecks. ) while for the efficiency for the hybrid are similar. I wonder if the reweighting in the fit is applied even for the pure non-resonant case (it should not happen) Daniele > I have just posted my contribution to today's meeting: > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~sacco/mxhad/Mxhad-Mxhadfit.txt > > Cheers, > > Roberto >