Print

Print


Hi Sheila,

   I had a look at your plots and have a few (maybe a lot) comments. Some
were already mentioned yesterday in the meeting.

Plotting:
---------

 - when you plot number of leptons (or e, m, ..) you should fix the maximum
   of your plot. Either to 1 or test for the maximum of both histograms.

 - I like histograms better (with error bars). Maybe you can try something
   like

   h1->Draw("histo")
   h1->Draw("e1same")
   h2->Draw("histosame")
   h2->Draw("e1same")

   Depends a bit if you can still see something, but I really appreciate
   the histo option for the spectra

 - the binning for the spectra could be finer. Maybe 50 MeV?

 - you should say more clearly what you have plotted in the captions
   to your plots. Number of particle is Number of leptons per BReco event.
   You say it in the text but maybe you can also add it to the plot caption.

 - Your normalisation makes only sense, if you look at a quantity, which
   you count for all events. Clearly, the spectra are only for events with
   at least one lepton (or e, m). Here you should normalise to the number
   of entries.

 - for the spectra, do you take only the most energetic particle in an event
   or all? The most energetic particle should be better simulated than all,
   so take only that.

 - how do you get the gif plots? Do you know that you can use
   canvas.Print("plot.gif")?


Number of Breco vs run number:
------------------------------

 - I was thinking of something like Toyoko showed in one of the
   Wednesday meetings on page 4:
   http://www.slac.stanford.edu/BFROOT/www/Physics/WednesdayMeetings/W072005/orimoto.pdf
   There, the mes yield/fb-1 is plotted, but for us the number of
   BReco events is still fine. The binning is 200 runs, maybe 100 is
   also fine. For data you clearly need the luminosity, which you can
   get from the lumiscript with adjusted tcl files.

   I am not sure how this is done for MC. I guess there is always the
   same number of events in a run and the runnumbers are evenly
   distributed. But then you would expect a more or less straight line
   for MC. Maybe this needs some further investigation, but I am not sure
   if we learn something from this.


R2 with R3 data comparision:
----------------------------

 - the muon momentum for R2 is missing.
 - the number of leptons for R3 is missing.
 - the number of leptons for R2 looks stange, you don't have entries
   without a lepton (as for electrons and muons seperately).

 - apart from the normalisation the electron and muon spectrum look good
   and could be compatible. I am not sure for the lepton spectrum.

 - the number of leptons (e, m, l) look not as expected. I would expect a
   lower number of muons in R3 compared to R2 because of the decreasing
   efficiency. I don't expect such a difference for electrons. This can be
   cross checked with the PID control histograms from the PID group.

 - the number of Kaons looks good.


R2 data/MC comparison:
----------------------

 - the muon spectrum for MC is missing.
 - the number of lepton for data is missing.

 - for data you only should use OnPeak. You can check if the OffPeak
   data is important to the analysis. Interesting numbers are number
   of Breco events per fb-1, number of leptons per fb-1 and number of
   events with BReco, lepton and lepton momentum > 1 GeV. This number
   should be very low. Already the number of BRecos should be quite
   low in the OffPeak data. This is one reason why we use the BReco
   sample.

 - The same argument should hold for ccbar and uds events. If you
   still have a discrepancy between data and MC you should also look
   at these samples.

 - the number of ... plots don't look too promissing. For example the
   number of electrons differ by absolute ~5% in the second bin. Maybe
   this is coming from the OffPeak. Let's wait for the updated plots.

Numbers:
--------

 A few numbers would be helpful:

 - number of events with at least one lepton/electron/muon per fb-1
   (N/intLum), which is the average of the ... vs run number plots.
   Same for BReco.


Cheers,

	Wolfgang